Linda Riordan: I welcome the promise made by our Prime Minister at the Labour party conference in 2008 to abolish prescription charges for those suffering from long-term conditions. Therefore, will the Minister now outline a clear timetable for the abolition of these charges for those with chronic diseases, to help alleviate their problems?

Gillian Merron: The simple answer is no, and the reason why is that removing tobacco displays is not going to close shops, no matter how much the hon. Gentleman and others in the House spread myths: I have just written to Members of Parliament to outline the reality The other truth—I look forward to discussing this issue in the Health Bill Committee this afternoon, Mr. Speaker—is that there is a great deal of evidence to show that tobacco displays not only encourage young people to take up smoking, but discourage people from quitting.

David Clelland: But if the display of tobacco products encourages young people to take up smoking, what influence do the crowds of people whom we see on the streets outside pubs and clubs have on young people? Would it not be better for these smokers to be hidden away—inside the building in a controlled environment, rather than on the streets, where children can see them?

Gillian Merron: I deeply regret that patients have contracted serious infections as a result of NHS treatment 20 or more years ago. However, it is the different circumstances of patients that are reflected in the different financial arrangements. We will review the Skipton fund, which was set up for those infected with hepatitis C, in 2014, 10 years after its commencement. I cannot accept the comparison with Ireland, because the Irish blood transfusion service was found to be at fault, and that was not the case here.

Stewart Jackson: The Minister referred earlier to last year's "Towards better births" report, which highlighted the issue of the lack of clean bathroom facilities available on maternity units, particularly as regards facilities for newborn babies. Only 16 per cent. of units had one bathroom per delivery room and fewer than half of women said that the toilets associated with those units were "very clean". Precisely what do the Government intend to do about the results of that report?

Tim Farron: My constituent, Mrs. Marsh, a young woman from Kendal, suffers from a rare form of cancer—a chordoma of the spine. The treat that could cure her is proton therapy; it is not available in this country but is available overseas. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me, Mrs. Marsh and her consultant to look at ways in which the NHS can fund her treatment overseas?

Gordon Brown: I believe that the mediation service is in the interests of London, where 400 institutions from the rest of Europe are operating, as I said. We need the co-operation of other regulators to make sure that things are in order. Mediation can therefore take place in only two specific areas: first, to ensure that the rules—that is, the rulebook—is being observed; and, secondly, if there is a dispute between home and host country. In both cases, I believe that that mediation will be in the long-term interests of Britain.

Alan Duncan: May I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for advance sight of her statement?
	Over the years, Mr. Speaker, you and I have often joked that we are frequently mistaken for each other—I am not quite sure why. Indeed only last night as I was walking through the Central Lobby, I was accosted by a Bishop who congratulated me on becoming Speaker. Whenever you made speeches in this House, I used to get stopped in the street the next day to be praised for what I had said. I always considered that to be a mixed blessing, but from now on, it is an honour.
	This House needs to recognise two things. The first is the depth of public anger that we have faced over the last couple of months. The second is the need to have a Parliament that works and does not become so brow-beaten and rules-driven that it loses all the confidence and freedom it needs to do its job properly.
	This statement is very simply a recapitulation of all the various decisions and processes that have been announced over the last few weeks. Internally, the Conservative party has taken a great deal of action and has led the way in bringing a far greater degree of transparency to what was an inadequate and murky system of allowances. We have introduced "right to know" forms for registering family members, strictly limited the things that can be claimed for under the second homes allowance and those on our Front Bench are now publishing online every receipt and relevant piece of correspondence that we have with the Department of Resources.
	The Leader of the House and I attended the meeting of the party leaders where the changes that she has just described were discussed and agreed, and they were almost identical to the ones that the Conservative party had implemented. Across the House, we all feel that we have gone a long way to removing the perceived excesses and absurdities of the second homes allowance.
	Despite the massive step towards transparency, publication last week of redacted receipts turned out to be an unmitigated PR disaster. Big black splodges, even if they were on top of completely blank paper, looked like censorship on a massive scale, even where they were not. Will the right hon. and learned Lady confirm that only the barest minimum necessary to protect genuinely private information and anything necessary to prevent identity fraud will be redacted when the 2008-09 receipts are published in October?
	May I say that Sir Thomas Legg is an excellent choice to undertake an audit of all claims from the last four years as he is a man of unimpeachable integrity? The reports of the Committee on Standards and Privilege enjoy an official status in this House and, although not strictly speaking judicial, their verdict is always taken as authoritative. What does the Leader of the House take to be the status, official or otherwise, of Sir Thomas Legg's inquiry and the report we expect from him in September? Where in law will it leave a Member who has been reported unfairly as having cheated and fiddled?
	In her statement, the Leader of the House re-announced her intention to set up a temporary Select Committee to propose parliamentary reform. She has already proposed that the chairman should be the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). Will she confirm that this Committee should do its work and then report just once, probably in November as she originally proposed, and that in setting it up she will agree at the same time to abolish the Modernisation Committee, which has not met for months and is clearly redundant?
	The Leader of the House has referred to the Committee on Standards in Public Life and also to today's imminent publication of the Parliamentary Standards Bill. Whereas the original Nolan report of 1995 outlined some clear principles about what Parliament should be and what it should mean to be an MP, many of those principles seem to have been completely ignored, distorted and even discarded during the hand-to-mouth reaction of the last couple of months. One such area is what she calls "pay transparency". The Nolan principles made a clear and deliberate distinction between the payments and income that had a direct bearing on a Member's parliamentary conduct and other such payments that definitely did not. The resolution of the House about outside earnings has led to a new code of conduct, published today, which many Members have already told me they think is unworkable. Is she satisfied that it is, in practice, workable as the resolution of the House has demanded?
	In order to determine the rules that are made to govern our conduct, should we not define in advance a clear set of principles to determine what our Parliament should be? Could we not, for instance, as a bare minimum, say that Parliament should be the free association of elected individuals, unrestrained and untrammelled by any partial interests or rules beyond those wholly necessary for MPs to carry out their duties with honesty and integrity? Perhaps, in future, that this House can take definite and further steps on that sort of basis to sort out the mess that it is in.

Harriet Harman: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was asking where it left a Member if Sir Thomas Legg said that there had been an overpayment. The answer to that question—even if he did not ask it—is that Sir Thomas Legg will notify Members in advance of publishing his report that he has found that there has been an overpayment. That will enable them to say, "Actually, I have got a copy of that mortgage invoice, and here it is." Members will be able to respond before the report is published and put into the public domain.
	The hon. Gentleman made some suggestions about how the new parliamentary committee should work. I agree that it is a good idea for it to be of limited duration and for it to focus on bringing together much of the work that has been done by hon. Members across a number of Committees so that we can focus and make some progress on strengthening Parliament. I think that meeting over a limited period of time and reporting once sound like good ideas.
	I could not quite work out whether the hon. Gentleman was in favour of the pay transparency of the new registration system. He asked whether it was workable. I can tell him that it is and that new guidance has been issued today. The new system will be workable if hon. Members approach it as follows: if they agree to do something for someone in return for money or a benefit in kind, they should register that. I think that that is fair enough.

David Heath: I thank the Leader of the House for her statement, and for my early sight of it. The public will welcome the fact that a shared view is emerging that fundamental reform is urgent and vital. However, I also suspect that people may be getting a little tired of party leaders trying to claim unique credit for that, whether on the lunchtime news or in this Chamber. I also wish that there was a shared view among hon. Members about the commitment to transparency and openness. I am not yet convinced that that is the case, and it may be something that we still need to work on.
	That brings me naturally to the publication of expenses. As far as I am concerned, data protection is important but having acres of black space is a redaction to the absurd. In my published expenses, the address of my local newspaper was removed, apparently because I had put in a receipt for an advertisement that I had placed. That suggests that we need to look at the matter again, and urgently.
	The Leader of the House knows that I have also given evidence to the Kelly committee. As she said, what is required is what is needed to do the job as a Member of Parliament—no more, no less. My view is that the right way forward is that basic accommodation costs only should be claimed, but we must wait and see what Kelly says. I ask her to confirm yet again that the Government will accept the recommendations of the Kelly inquiry, whatever they may be. Will she also confirm that she will accept the recommendations of the Committee to be chaired by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase and put those recommendations, whatever they are, before the House, rather than editing them in advance?
	On the Parliamentary Standards Bill, the Leader of the House knows that we support the principle of external regulation. Has she given any further thought to registers held by the House, other than the Register of Members' Interests, that should be covered by the Bill? Will she look again at the common law offence of misconduct in public office? The maximum penalties for the offence are life imprisonment and unlimited fines, which many of our constituents may feel is insufficient for many Members. Will the right hon. and learned Lady look at putting that on a statutory basis, as recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 1997?
	Lastly, I welcome the transparency that is being proposed on non-parliamentary income, but I feel there are still problems with the de minimis requirements and their connection with the advocacy rules. I do not want us to be in the position that no Member of the House can visit a factory in their constituency and accept a cup of tea and then say something in the House about the industry or their constituency. I do not think that the code of conduct and the guidance notes yet make the distinction that provides for those circumstances.
	The Leader of the House has our general support for the measures she has put forward today. We must now make progress, and the sooner we can do so, the better.

David Winnick: I fully support all the efforts being made by the Government both to clean up our act and for full disclosure. I have listened carefully to what my right hon. and learned Friend said, but does she accept nevertheless that the blacked-out information released officially last week was very embarrassing? It lost us further public support, was rather farcical and can only be described as a public relations disaster.

Fiona Mactaggart: It strikes me that there is a risk of our either rushing ahead to try and fix things, or going very slowly. We failed to take action against the former dishonourable Member for Windsor when he claimed for an utterly fictional address, and since then we have been surprised by Members' behaviour that is not honourable and have rushed to solutions, some of which, as the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) emphasised, might not work in practice. I have noticed that colleagues who were originally enthusiastic about the House being the employer of our staff felt less enthusiastic following the consultation about what that might mean. Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure the widest possible consultation on the Bill's proposals to make sure that we get it right this time, having got it so miserably wrong so frequently?

Alan Reid: I welcome much of what was in the statement today, but there was one important omission, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) mentioned. I hope that the committee chaired by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase will be able to consider the programming of Government Bills on Report. Scrutinising Bills is one of the most important jobs that we do, and it is very important that amendments on Report should be grouped in such a way that all parts of a Bill are discussed. I hope that the committee will be able to look at that aspect of programming.

Hilary Benn: If the hon. Gentleman listens to what I say about the Bill, he may feel somewhat reassured, but I will always give careful consideration to an invitation from him or any other hon. Member.
	The Bill has been given full consideration in the other place and what is before us today reflects the changes that have resulted. I am grateful to my noble Friends Lord Hunt of King's Heath and Lord Davies of Oldham for the huge amount of time and effort they have put in to steering the Bill through the other place. We have before us today an improved Bill as a result of those efforts.
	The waters around the UK are one of the richest marine environments in the world. More than 8,000 species have been recorded in our seas, from the pink sea fan to the Atlantic puffin and from tiny plankton to the basking sharks that feed on them. Businesses working in and around our seas contribute between 3 and 4 per cent. of our GDP and directly employ about 500,000 people. They are central to the life of many communities around the country. It is for this reason that the Bill seeks to find a balance: space in our seas for economic activity and further development—for example, generating more renewable energy—while protecting vital habitats and marine life.

David Davis: On precisely that point, the thrust of the Bill in creating marine conservation zones is entirely supported by almost everybody in the House, but there is one difference between it and its Scottish equivalent and European legislation on sites of special scientific interest. The criteria under the Bill for creating a marine conservation zone takes into account social and economic factors; those factors are not in the Scottish or SSSI legislation. That only comes in at the management stage. Should not the decision on the location of one of these zones be principally—in fact, entirely—a scientific and conservation decision, with the management then dealing with the social and economic factors?

Hilary Benn: As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware, the ship-to-ship transfer regulations are currently under consultation in respect of the relevant Department. That would seem an opportunity to pursue the important point that he raises about making sure that the regulations are fit for purpose.
	Part 3 and schedules 5 and 6 will introduce a new system of marine planning which is designed to help us to manage the competing uses of the sea. It will help public authorities and those using our waters to co-ordinate what they do, while enabling the Government to insist on a sustainable approach. A marine policy statement will be prepared and agreed by the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, setting out policies and priorities for the whole UK marine area. Since the Bill was first introduced, we have clarified the process for scrutiny of the draft MPS because we believe that it is important that all UK legislatures have time properly to consider it. After full consultation with everyone who has an interest, a series of marine plans will be prepared that will apply the policies in the MPS locally. Marine plan authorities will have to report to Parliament every six years on how they have used their powers, and on their future intentions. That will allow a clear picture of progress on marine planning to be available to all of us.
	Part 4 and schedules 7, 8 and 9 will introduce a simplified, fairer and more transparent licensing system to permit activities in our seas and to set out any appropriate conditions that are needed to protect the environment or human health, or to prevent interference with other users of the sea. That will replace the current licensing and consent controls. The changes are intended to provide greater certainty to operators about the timing and outcome of licence applications and will make it easier for licensing authorities to make decisions that are consistent with the marine policy statement and the marine plans. They will also provide a wider range of enforcement options; taking people to court will not be the only sanction available.

Hilary Benn: It is not for us to put such duties on the Welsh Assembly Government. It is a matter for them to determine. We will clearly be looking for co-ordination. On devolution, when the Bill was published in draft one of the principal concerns expressed by those who scrutinised it was whether all the bits would fit together. We have worked very hard—I pay tribute in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford and to Ministers in the devolved Administrations for approaching the Bill in the right spirit and saying, "Yes, we will come together to make it work in a coherent fashion"—so that the Bill before us today does that.
	Part 7 and schedules 15 and 16 amend existing legislation relating to marine fisheries, including the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 and the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967, to provide new powers to regulate fishing. They also give new and more flexible powers to the Environment Agency to conserve and manage those fisheries.
	Part 8 and schedules 17 and 18 will provide for the appointment of marine enforcement officers and powers to enforce licensing, nature conservation and sea fisheries legislation. In addition, further powers are provided for marine enforcement officers, covering inspection, seizure, retention and release of fish and gear. Those powers also contain provision for an administrative penalty scheme for domestic fisheries offences. Enforcement officers will also be able to investigate suspected nature conservation or licensing offences in their area of jurisdiction.
	Before I turn to part 9, I think it right to inform the House that I am the part owner of a small piece of land on the coast in Essex. In drafting this legislation, I have delegated to my ministerial team all questions that might be relevant to my potential interest.
	Part 9 and schedules 19 and 20 will extend recreational access to the English coast and create, as far as possible, a continuous route for walkers around the coast, and recreational space associated with the route. Natural England will be charged with making that happen. The Bill will also enable the Welsh Assembly to make similar provisions for the Welsh coast.

Nick Herbert: The American poet Walt Whitman once described the sea as "a continual miracle". His description captures both the beauty and the importance of our marine environment. The waters surrounding our island contain a rich and diverse collection of species. Indeed, our seas contain double the number of animal groups found on land. It is estimated that more than 44,000 different types of plant and animal—about half the UK's biodiversity—live in our seas. They are home to 22 marine mammal species, such as minke whales and bottlenose dolphins, and 300 species of fish, which include different varieties of seahorse and basking sharks. However, the seas are not just crucial for marine creatures. They are of the utmost importance for people, too, performing the vital tasks of absorbing damaging greenhouse gases, regulating our climate and producing oxygen for us to breathe.
	It must also be recognised that many people enjoy the benefits of the marine environment through a variety of leisure and sporting activities. The oceans are an important resource for food, and an enormous potential source of energy—provided, of course, that we harvest such resources sustainably.
	There can be no doubt that the condition of the marine environment is of great importance to the public. In a 2005 survey conducted by the National Trust, two thirds of respondents said that visiting the seaside or coast was important to their quality of life. In 2007, the wildlife trusts produced a poll showing that 94 per cent. of people believed that the health of the marine environment was important to them, but the same survey also revealed public concern about the decline in fish stocks in our seas. That is one of the most pressing challenges facing the marine environment. Around 70 to 80 per cent. of the world's marine fish stocks are fully exploited, over exploited, depleted, or recovering from depletion. It is predicted that the world will run out of seafood species that can be fished by 2048.
	The picture is similar for UK waters, as fish stocks have greatly decreased over recent decades. In 1956, the British distant water fishing fleet returned to shore with 8.36 million tonnes of fish. By 2007, the whole UK fleet landed only 600,000 tonnes.
	The Secretary of State referred to the recently released film called "The End of the Line", which highlights the damaging impact of over-fishing on marine eco-systems, and the harmful effects of the common fisheries policy in particular. I pay tribute to the efforts of Charles Clover in raising public awareness of that hugely important issue. Reform of fisheries policy is essential, but we also need to focus on two other great challenges facing the marine environment.
	The first and most important challenge is climate change. As I mentioned earlier, our seas perform the vital task of absorbing harmful greenhouse gases. The world's oceans absorb more than a quarter of the carbon dioxide generated by the planet, but there are concerns that the amount of CO2 that they are soaking up is decreasing. In 2007, scientists from the university of East Anglia showed that CO2 absorption in the north Atlantic halved between the mid-1990s and the early part of this decade. There are fears that, if the oceans become saturated with CO2 and are unable to absorb any more, that could lead to an increase in global warming.
	The Marine Climate Change Impacts Partnership has highlighted some of the effects of climate change on the marine environment. It has stressed the
	"growing evidence that the scale of impact of climate change on marine waters around the UK is becoming sufficiently pronounced to have a noticeable effect on sea bird populations."
	Rising sea temperatures brought about by global warming have led to increased acidity in our oceans and seas. In the last 200 years, ocean acidity has increased by 30 per cent., a much quicker rate than at any time in the previous 65 million years. That has caused considerable damage to coral reefs, which provide food and shelter for marine species.
	To mitigate climate change, there is a pressing need to improve the amount of energy generated from renewable sources. The Government missed their 5 per cent. target in 2003, and they have admitted that they will miss their 2010 and 2020 targets to generate, respectively, 10 and 20 per cent. of electricity from renewables. If we are to have any hope of meeting our targets and developing our capacity to generate green electricity, offshore wind must play a bigger role. Our proposal for a network of marine energy parks would greatly increase that capacity, and address some of the current infrastructure problems that stand in the way of greater progress. There is no reason why such parks, if correctly sited, could not coexist with the marine conservation objectives set out in the Bill. In many cases, indeed, offshore wind farms that prevent the catching of fish can serve as de facto no-take zones.
	The second challenge is pollution, and the WWF has estimated that 3 million tonnes of oil each year end up in the seas and oceans around the world. Shockingly, a third of the total is pumped out from tankers cleaning their tanks before receiving as new load. Although oil spills are rare, their consequences are horrific. In 1996, the tanker Sea Empress was holed below the water line as it entered an estuary off the Pembrokeshire coats, spilling 72,000 tonnes of oil into the sea. That resulted in the deaths of thousands of sea birds and the contamination of 120 miles of coast line.
	There is also concern about the growing problem of discarded plastic items such as nets, line and containers. The United Nations Environment Programme estimated in 2006 that there are 46,000 pieces of floating plastic in every square mile of ocean. According to the WWF, this form of pollution is tragically thought to kill about a million seabirds and 100,000 whales, seals, and dolphins every year. Here in the UK, the Marine Conservation Society's recent Beachwatch report found that litter on Britain's beaches is at its highest levels since records began in 1994. Over a single weekend last September, more than 5,000 volunteers from the society picked up 385,000 pieces of litter from beaches in the UK. The most common items were pieces of plastic.
	So we on this side of the House recognise the pressing need for a Bill that faces up to the challenges before us and ensures that the marine environment is protected for future generations. When the Secretary of State published this Bill last year, he proclaimed it as "groundbreaking legislation", but it has taken a long time to break the ground. It is now eight years since Tony Blair said that his Government were
	"launching measures to improve marine conservation here and abroad".
	The Labour party's 2001 manifesto promised action. There was a consultation in 2002—predictably entitled "Seas of Change"—but another two years passed by, until the then Prime Minister said that
	"there are strong arguments for a new approach to managing our seas, including a new Marine Bill."
	Despite those "strong arguments", however, the new approach consisted of plans for a new Marine Bill in DEFRA's five-year strategy, and yet another manifesto commitment. Another two years elapsed before proposals for a draft Marine Bill were included in the Queen's Speech of November 2007. Finally, the Bill was introduced in the other place in December last year.
	The Secretary of State told the Joint Committee on the draft Bill that we have waited
	"five million years for a Marine Bill".
	Of course we have not, but it certainly feels like it. Throughout this time, while the Government delayed, we on this side have pushed for a marine Bill. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) proposed a Bill some eight years ago that would have greatly increased the protection offered to the marine environment.  [ Interruption. ]

Nick Herbert: I agree: what was the point of the 2001 manifesto commitment if it is not honoured? I was simply making the point that the Bill has been delayed and that there is considerable concern among conservation bodies that it should now get safely on to the statute book, because the measures that it contains are urgent and necessary.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge said back in October 2001 at his Bill's Second Reading:
	"At least half of the United Kingdom's biodiversity is found in the marine environment, but existing laws do not adequately address its protection and management...For too long, the marine environment has been the Cinderella of wildlife conservation—a case of out of sight, out of mind."—[ Official Report, 26 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 527-528.]
	What a pity it was that the Bill ultimately ran out of time in the other place. However, better late than never, we now have this Bill before us.
	My criticism over the delay, however, does not extend to the other place, which scrutinised a complex Bill thoroughly. It is fair to say that much of the "heavy lifting" of the Bill has been done already. The format and objectives of the proposed marine management organisation, the functioning of the proposed marine conservation zones and the process for establishing the coastal route have all been markedly improved, but there remain a number of outstanding issues of concern.
	The core of the Bill is the proposed creation of the MMO. We support that proposal, as there is a genuine need for a co-ordinated management of the marine environment but, as the wildlife trusts have said,
	"this will be a very important body....It will need to be a strong organisation and will take the lead on the implementation."
	We need to ensure both that the MMO has adequate powers to fulfil its important role, and that it is accountable for how it uses those powers. As Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who did so much to improve the Bill in the other place, said:
	"The MMO will be a powerful body with a broad remit of functions and a high-profile central objective. It is therefore important that it is seen to be as transparent as possible."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 12 January 2009; Vol. 706, c. 1070.]
	We are therefore pleased that a duty has been added to the Bill to require the guidance relating to the sustainability criteria to be consulted on and laid before the House, and that these criteria have been strengthened.
	Minsters also accepted calls to improve the sustainability aspect of marine planning statements through a requirement to carry out an appraisal. Sustainability must be at the core of our approach to the marine environment, and we are pleased that the Bill now reflects this.
	It is also welcome that clause 2 now contains a specific reference to the need for decisions taken by the MMO to be based on scientific evidence. As the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation recently reported, it has been the lack of scientific evidence guiding fisheries policy around the world that has done so much to damage fish stocks and the wider marine eco-system. We welcome the amendments to ensure that a chief scientific adviser will be appointed to lead the MMO in that area, as well as in further marine science more generally. Those requirements will be important in ensuring the best possible protection for the marine environment.
	An outstanding issue that has not been adequately resolved is the relationship between the MMO and the Infrastructure Planning Commission. As the House will be aware, the Opposition did not support the creation of an infrastructure planning commission, principally because it would embody a democratic deficit, and it is our intention to replace any such commission with a speeded-up planning process, in which the Secretary of State remains ultimately responsible and accountable to Parliament for decisions on controversial applications.
	In the meantime, with the formation of the IPC and its remit in the marine sphere, it makes little sense to create an organisation such as the MMO, which should be the prime delivery body for managing the marine environment, without giving it control over all relevant development. Given the potential impact of some development at sea on the operation of the MMO, it seems wrong merely to require developers to consult the organisation about proposed developments while the final decision rests with the IPC. The Government need to explain why they are so keen that planning applications in the marine environment should be adjudicated by the IPC when the MMO, with its marine experts and scientists, will be most in tune with the impact of development at sea.
	We have concerns about the status of the proposed marine conservation zones. The WWF has described them as
	"a vital management tool to address the threats to marine biodiversity."
	They offer an opportunity to make a lasting improvement to the marine environment, but they must have enough flexibility with regard to designation and restriction to ensure that they can be successfully designated and enforced, and that real ecological benefits accrue.
	As Wildlife and Countryside Link has highlighted, it is essential that the Bill does not repeat some of the weaknesses of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in relation to the creation of marine nature reserves. Since that Act only three small reserves have been created, including Lundy island, which I had the pleasure of visiting a few years ago. According to the wildlife trusts, a complete fishing ban around Lundy in 2003 resulted in dramatic changes, noticeably an increase in the abundance of shellfish.
	The experience of Lundy and of international examples in New Zealand and Australia shows the benefit of designation both to wildlife and to those who use the sea commercially. Fish are given the opportunity to recover and abundant stocks spill out of the no-take zones, improving catches locally. However, such levels of protection, which include outright fishing bans, are clearly the most exceptional form of designation; we need to achieve the protection of larger areas of the seas with a flexible and ecologically coherent network of conservation zones.

James Gray: Given that two thirds of the coast is already open to walkers, does my hon. Friend see a real need for access to the entire coast at minimum cost of £50 million—probably more? At a time such as this, can we really justify forcing through a path that apparently walkers do not actually need?

Nick Herbert: The hon. Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner) had better raise his points in his own speech, and the Minister will reply.
	It is vital that we do not underestimate the importance of the marine environment. The Bill represents a once in a lifetime opportunity to secure the protection that our seas need. We have waited a long time for it, and Conservatives are pleased that after many years of delay, we are close to delivering legislation that will help to safeguard our seas for future generations.
	The sea has always been critical to the health and prosperity of our islands, but around the world the marine environment faces challenges that we might not have imagined 50 or perhaps even 20 years ago. It is important that in creating laws to govern how we manage and safeguard our seas, the right balance is achieved. As a living asset, our seas require the right level of protection for marine eco-systems and the biodiversity that they contain, but those laws must also allow a sustainable environment for fishing and other activities and the communities that rely on them. We hope that the Bill is able to strike the proper balance so that we can protect and improve the marine environment now and for the future.

Elliot Morley: Indeed.
	I know that the wording of the Bill, as was pointed out, is "may have regard", but I return to the point that that opens the door to protracted legal wrangling. It is more important to make sure that the Bill is effective.
	I am concerned about the wording in relation to the need for the MMO to have a strong sustainable development duty. The Government should be congratulated on implementing, in a range of bodies and organisations, a clear duty to promote sustainable development. The Bill refers to
	"the objective of making a contribution to the achievement of sustainable development",
	which is rather weak wording. The wildlife trusts think that that should be replaced with a duty "to further sustainable development," which implies a much more proactive approach. That is worth taking into account.
	Another issue raised in the debate is the important role of the infrastructure planning committee. That has an important role in major developments in our offshore waters, but I am surprised that the marine management organisation is not a statutory consultee of the IPC. That would be a simple amendment and should be considered.
	The Bill removes from Natural England its decision-making power for the designation of sub-tidal parts of SSSIs, and transfers that power to the Secretary of State. I have every confidence in the present Secretary of State, but, to be consistent, Natural England should retain responsibility for the designation of SSSIs in inter-tidal zones. That needs to be re-examined.
	Those points are fairly straightforward, but they are important and a range of organisations have written to right hon. and hon. Members echoing them. I am quite sure that many constituents will have contacted Members, as many have contacted me, not only to support the Bill and the Government but to ensure that we get the Bill right and address in Committee some of the points I have mentioned, many of which have already been addressed in the welcome Joint Committee that performed pre-legislative scrutiny. It was a very useful part of the process, and, although the pre-legislative process adds to the time scale, we should support it more often. It makes for better legislation and involves interested organisations, many of which have given their input, expertise and experience.

Andrew George: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), because he has a distinguished record, of which he can be proud, of commitment to marine conservation in and around the UK over many years, and of negotiation in Europe and internationally. I congratulate not only the Government on introducing the Bill, the campaign organisations that have been behind it for many years and many Members, but the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), who many years ago promoted a private Member's Bill that certainly helped to highlight the issue.
	I often describe the seas around the UK as a rather damp piece of common ground, on which there are layers of competing interests and conflicting demands. Of course, it is extremely damp, because, apart from on the coast itself, it is wet all the time. Leaving aside the brief and discordant note of disappointment that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) cast, I endorse his highlighting of the many issues that I hope we will have the opportunity to debate in Committee. I hope that the Minister in Committee will be receptive to several issues that need to be probed still further and to which I shall return in a moment.
	I shall illustrate my remarks with two recent events. The first event took place yesterday, off the coast of my constituency. The 18-ft vessel of four marine biologists tipped over near Land's End at the Runnel Stone when they were setting pingers to explore the impact of certain activities on cetaceans. One of my constituents, Dr. Nick Tregenza, whom I know very well and who is, in fact, my former GP, was thrown into the water along with the three others. Fortunately, some inshore fishermen were not far away and came to their rescue, but, had the marine biologists been in the water for much longer, we would have been talking about a loss of life. The two local fishermen, Andrew Pascoe and Jesse Walter, arrived in two separate boats and took them to the RNLI lifeboat, which in turn took them to the nearby fishing port of Newlyn. Two of the biologists were taken to hospital, and one, who is ill, remains there.
	I spoke to Nick Tregenza earlier today, and the moral of the story is that, although the relationship between marine biologists and fishermen is often characterised as one of perpetual conflict, over recent years they have come together, as symbolised by fishermen saving the lives of marine biologists off the coast of my constituency only yesterday. They support each other and recognise each other's position much more than they did 10 or 15 years ago, when I first entered the House.
	The second event took place a year ago, on 9 June 2008, when 26 dolphins rather inexplicably became stranded on the south coast of Cornwall around the Falmouth and Percuil area. Last month, we received a report from the UK cetaceans strandings investigation programme. Although it found that no definite cause could be identified, it drew attention to high-intensity acoustic activity from naval sonar in the region just before the event. Those two things are not necessarily connected, but Nick Tregenza, who is an expert on cetaceans, tells me that they can easily become spooked by such activity, which can affect them for a long time. We can only speculate about what happened, but today's debate has drawn attention to the activities of fishermen, who have been caricatured as the villains causing the most damage to our seas, and we need to look rather wider. Fishermen are engaging much more constructively in the processes under discussion to protect the future of sustainable fishing.
	Cetaceans are highly sensitive and fragile animals. Around the coast of Cornwall and south-west England, there is a small group—only 12 in number—of bottlenose dolphins, despite there being 400 miles of coastline in the area. With the exception of an 18-year period from the 1980s, bottlenose dolphins have lived in the area since time immemorial—a point that I made in a debate on 6 February 2008.
	We need the Bill, because other parts of the world, from New Zealand to Canada, have similar legislation, and it is working. We are an island nation and, given our location and dependence on the sea, rather unique in Europe. Marine wildlife is in a seriously fragile state, with population decline and, in some cases, stock collapse, and there are new pressures from offshore wind, tidal and wave energy, which we knew nothing or very little about just 10 or 15 years ago—hence the need to act. Other industries are also developing, and the technology available to the fishing industry is much more powerful now than it was 20 years ago.
	I want to comment on the need, in some cases, for a higher tier of protection. I also want to discuss the extent to which socio-economic consequences need to be considered in the designation and planning of marine conservation zones, the territorial extent of the Bill and its relationship with the common fisheries policy—which has already been addressed on a couple of occasions—the importance of the proper management of the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities in the six-mile zone, and coastal access.
	The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), who is no longer present, referred to the concern felt by many about the designation of the MMO and the impact that it will have on the current staff of the Marine and Fisheries Agency. I wrote to the Minister earlier in the year, and he replied on 6 February:
	"There will be little practical difference for the staff in this change e.g. pensions provision should not change and MMO staff should be able to apply for Civil Service posts."
	However, concerns remain despite the reassurances that I have conveyed to my constituents in the sector, and it seems that there is more work for the Government to do.
	The Secretary of State did not mention Finding Sanctuary, an organisation that was established to identify potential candidates for marine conservation zones. I commend the work of Finding Sanctuary and the other bodies that are already doing that work. In an intervention on the Secretary of State's speech, I spoke of the importance of providing more protection for particularly fragile, vulnerable areas within MCZs. Notwithstanding his reassurance, it is clear that the conservation bodies that have campaigned for legislation remain unconvinced that the Bill as it stands provides the level of protection they want.
	As I have said before, it would be wrong to characterise fishermen as being interested only in plundering the stocks of the sea. Let me give an example of which the right hon. Member for Scunthorpe should be well aware. Fishermen in my area have been campaigning for many years, saying "Please save us from ourselves by closing the fishing grounds in the Trevose area"—which is off the north coast of Cornwall—"during the early spring months each year." It has been done, and as a result foreign vessels have been kept out, along with the UK vessels that wanted to protect the spawning grounds off Trevose. That is already paying dividends in stock recovery.

Andrew George: Yes. I commend the activities of the invest in fish programme, which has made a tremendous contribution. There is now a constructive debate between fishermen and marine biologists. I gave a symbolic example from as recently as yesterday, which I think demonstrates both parties' commitment to talk to and support each other.
	We are taking about extremely fragile mobile stock. Skate, for example, live to the age of 100, and the males do not reach sexual maturity until the age of 11. When fish are removed from that stock, it takes a long time for the stock to recover. Off the continental shelf, orange roughy and other deep-water fish do not reach sexual maturity until the age of 30, and live well beyond the age of 100. Plundering of that stock has an immediate impact from which it takes the stock many years to recover. I hope the Minister will also bear it in mind that, in identifying marine conservation zones, we should consider the wider issues of marine artefacts, naval war graves and wrecks. As well as marine biodiversity, there is some archaeology out there.
	There has already been discussion of the extent to which socio-economic consequences can be taken into account in the identification of MCZs. I think that the Government should reconsider their position on two different types of designation: designation of highly protected zones, and designation of those that represent the kind of marine environment around the United Kingdom coast. I agree with those who believe that socio-economic consequences should be put aside when there needs to be a designation similar to that of sites of special scientific interest, based purely on the vulnerability, fragility and uniqueness of the site that needs to be protected. However, I hope that if it is a case of one site versus another—a sandy-bottom versus a rocky-bottom area, for instance—the socio-economic consequences will be considered at that stage. They should certainly be brought to bear in implementing marine plans.
	I said that I would refer to the territorial extent of the Bill. I have raised the issue with the Minister before. As he knows, we will have effective absolute jurisdiction and control within the 6-mile zone, particularly in regard to fishing, and will have control to a middling extent within the 12-mile zone. In answer to a question that I asked him earlier in the year, the Minister replied:
	"Beyond six nautical miles we will pursue the introduction of measures through the EU Common Fisheries Policy."—[ Official Report, 20 January 2009; Vol. 486, c. 1281W.]
	It is clear that in the 6-mile zone—and particularly in the area between 6 and 12 miles where a number of other nations have historic fishing entitlements—we need to move much more quickly. We must either secure bilateral agreements with those nations and their fishing fleets or, through the European Union, secure a clear recognition within the 200-mile and median line zones that we are capable of applying the same rules to other fishing nations as to our own. This is a critical issue. I hope that the Minister will take it on board, and that we shall be able to explore it still further in Committee.
	With regard to the inshore fisheries conservation authorities, the Minister already knows that I hope that he will respect the integrity of the boundaries of the current sea fisheries committees. There is a local issue with the maintenance of the distinction between the Isles of Scilly and Cornwall, for example. It is important that, in managing such issues, the isles and the county are managed distinctly, rather than being subsumed into a much larger hole.
	Way back, on 28 November 2000, I had a debate in Westminster Hall with the right hon. Member for Scunthorpe on the future of the inshore fishing industry and the rather archaic legislation on sea fisheries committees. We recognised that we needed consolidating legislation to update all the regulations under which sea fisheries committees operate. I hope that the Minister will reassure me in Committee that those issues are being properly addressed.
	Finally, I turn to coastal access. Of course, we welcome the introduction in the Lords of a robust appeals mechanism. There is a need for further debate about not only equestrians but dog owners in respect of wildlife considerations, particularly ground-nesting birds on the coast line. Furthermore, disabled people's access to the coast line has not been properly explored.
	This is an important Bill. We have commenced with a constructive dialogue, and I hope that we can take that forward to the Committee.

Peter Viggers: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the chance to follow the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton), whose speech was steeped in the beauty of his lovely constituency.
	The Bill carries with it a great deal of hope. It is rare for me to receive as many messages from constituents asking me to support a Bill and press for it to be brought forward as I have on this one, beginning some years ago and continuing to the present day. That is not surprising, because my constituency is closely linked to the sea. Gosport is a peninsula and was originally developed as a support area for the Royal Navy. No part of the constituency is more than about two miles from the sea or the harbour. Boatbuilding and the sea are important to industry in the area, and marine transport is also important in the constituency. Indeed, I am one of the few people I know who went to school by boat. Leisure industries in the marine field—yachting, sailing, swimming, sailboards—are extremely important in the Gosport area, as is access to the coastal area.
	The priority in the Bill must be to get the whole issue right and hand on the environment to our successor generations. Special interest groups in the coastal area, such as yachting, fishing, dog walkers and equestrian interests, have lobbied on the Bill, and their views must all be taken into account. However, the overriding priority must be conservation. It is disturbing that the wildlife trusts have said that an area of the North sea the size of Cambridgeshire is virtually devoid of life as a result of activity by the oil and gas industry. Whatever the Bill does, there must be no change to the marine environment unless it is consistent with the highest standards of conservation.
	Of course, the Bill must be consistent with improving standards worldwide, starting with the UK. I am disconcerted to find that the Bill is quite complicated when it comes to responsibility in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I hope that it will be possible to co-ordinate activities so that it is effective across the whole UK. We must also ensure that it is effective across the whole European Union and entirely consistent with EU efforts. We must go further and ensure that all the international bodies—the United Nations and others—work together in a consistent manner to preserve our environment.
	My questions to myself are whether the Bill will be effective and whether it will provide the right and necessary powers and duties. Coming fresh to the Bill and reading it through, I must say that I was not fully convinced. This is a once-in-a-generation chance to get things right, as we missed the chance to pass the Randall Bill—I see my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) in his place, and he has made a notable contribution to the dialogue. However, it does not feel to me like a once-in-a-generation Bill.
	The MMO will be accountable to Parliament through the Secretary of State, but it will be independent. I am not convinced that passing responsibility to an independent body is really the right thing to do. The Secretary of State must be capable of standing at the Dispatch Box and accepting responsibility for all the activities of the MMO.
	Obtaining independence for an independent body is very difficult. My immediate experience of that comes from a completely different field, which is the Electoral Commission. It was set up as an independent body, but it had to be responsible to somebody. The somebody to whom it was responsible was the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, on which I serve and a number of whose meetings I have chaired. That body, accountable to Parliament, gives the Electoral Commission independence.
	It is stated that the MMO will be independent, but of course Ministers will appoint the chairman, and they will appoint members after consultation with the chairman. The appointment and, if necessary, dismissal of members is not fully spelled out in the Bill, so I am not sure exactly how that would work. My preference would be to give that body rather less independence and more Government accountability. It must have the powers and capacity to carry through its responsibilities, and we need it to be given wide, sweeping powers with resources to match.
	Looking through the Bill, we find a great many bodies for which the MMO will not actually have responsibility. It will instead have a duty to liaise with them. The consultative document states that its success
	"will depend on its effective interaction with many other public bodies, including Defra, the Environment Agency, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Natural England, the Infrastructure Planning Commission, BERR, the Marine Science Coordinating Committee, IFCAs"—
	inshore fisheries and conservation authorities—
	"the Crown Estate, local authorities, harbour authorities and Cefas",
	the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. There are many bodies with which the MMO will have a responsibility to liaise, and one would be happier to see it being given broader powers.
	I welcome the Bill, but as it passes through its subsequent stages I hope that the approach taken will be to press for all necessary powers, facilities and budgets to be given to the MMO so that it can be fully effective in its role.

Nick Ainger: Like everyone else who has spoken so far, I welcome the Bill. It may have been a long time coming, but it is even more welcome for that. I pay tribute to the ministerial team, who have been plugging away at it and getting agreement, particularly with the devolved Administrations. I know that it has not necessarily been too easy to achieve that, bearing in mind the idea of trying to have UK coverage while recognising that responsibilities have been devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
	I welcome the Bill from a constituency perspective in particular. Until the 1997 general election, I represented Pembroke, which was the county of Pembrokeshire. If we want a microcosm of why we need the MMO and why we need the licensing, the planning and the marine conservation areas, we just have to look at Pembrokeshire and its coast.
	We are probably the biggest energy hub in the United Kingdom and we have one of the largest ports in the UK. We also have a coastal national park and 187 miles of completely continuous coastal path. The Pembrokeshire coast and islands were designated as a special area of conservation some years ago. We also have Ministry of Defence ranges. We depend on our coast for our massive tourist industry, as well as for the energy industry. In Skomer, which is immediately offshore, we have one of only two marine nature reserves, which is a special designation from Europe for conservation purposes, yet we also have all the other social and economic activities taking place, both recreational and industrial. Pembrokeshire is therefore a prime example of why we need the Bill.
	What brought home the importance of their coast and sea to the people of Pembrokeshire was—the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) referred to this—what happened on 15 February 1996, when the Sea Empress ran aground and, within four days, deposited 72,000 tonnes of crude oil on my constituency. That event brought home to people how vital the coast and the seas are, not purely from a conservation point of view, but from a social and economic point of view, because for the next six months the coast and the seas around Pembrokeshire were shut down. The compensation claim, when it was finally settled, totalled more than £60 million. That shows how important maintaining and improving the quality of our marine environment is, from both a conservation and a social and economic point of view. I therefore warmly welcome the Bill.
	There are new developments taking place off the Pembrokeshire coast. We have two pilot sites, one of which is for wave energy off Marloes, quite close to the Skomer marine nature reserve. Further north, in Ramsey Sound, we have a pilot scheme for developing tidal power. The MMO and the licensing procedures contained in the Bill are therefore welcome for my constituency.
	Like other hon. Members, we want the Bill to work as well as it can. Opposition Members have referred to it as a "once in a generation" opportunity. I agree with that; therefore, it is vital that we get it right. However, I want to raise a couple of concerns about the detail of the Bill.
	On the marine management organisation, the Countryside Council for Wales and the Welsh Assembly's Sustainability Committee have brought to my attention their concerns about cross-border issues and the need for the Bill perhaps to require marine planning and marine statements to be done jointly, particularly in relation to the Dee and Severn estuaries. I would welcome a response from my hon. Friend the Minister to that point when he winds up. The renewable energy organisations have also brought to my attention their concerns about whether the MMO will have sufficient expertise and personnel to deal with applications for renewable energy generation below 100 MW, particularly where they involve small offshore wind generation or wave and tidal power.
	I welcome the inshore fisheries conservation authorities. In the past, I have been critical of the fact that sea fisheries committees have not had the resources. I hope that they will have sufficient resources in England, bearing in mind that they are to be given wider powers, which is the right thing to do. However, I am concerned that the same powers are not yet being given to Welsh Ministers, who will take over ultimate responsibility for the sea fisheries committees. The Countryside Council for Wales and the Welsh Assembly's Sustainability Committee have raised concerns about that, too.
	Other Members have raised their concerns about the designation of marine conservation zones. I share their concern that it would appear from the Bill that sea fishing would allow damage to be done in those zones. That needs to be addressed in Committee. I would also like the term "disturbance" to be used in the Bill in relation to such zones.
	Finally, to those Members, mainly on the Opposition Benches, who have expressed concern about the coastal path, let me say that the 187 miles of the Pembrokeshire coastal path show that, with some imagination and, in certain circumstances, quite radical action, we can achieve something through negotiation that delivers for people who want to have access and enjoy the coast, but which has huge economic benefits as well. In 1996-97, the Pembrokeshire coast national park conducted a survey that showed that there were 915,000 user days on the coastal path. The park now estimates there to be well over 1 million user days a year. Twelve years ago, it was estimated that walkers on the coastal path generated nearly £20 million for the local economy. I think that the figure is at least twice that now. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) was concerned about the cost. In fact, the benefit is enormous.

Linda Gilroy: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I welcome the extension you have just granted, but whether my voice is going to last out even for 10 minutes, let alone 12, I do not know. It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). It was on Second Reading of his Bill that I made my first speech on these issues—at rather too great length, if I remember correctly. I believe that hon. Members were starting to worry that I was in the Chamber to filibuster, but no such thing—I was just celebrating the rich contributions of Plymouth, Devon and Cornwall. I do not intend to repeat them at any length on this occasion, but it is still so good to be here with not one, but two things promised in our election manifesto of 2005.
	It was a particular privilege to serve on the Committee of both Houses on the draft Bill. I have heard various Members, including the hon. Member for Gosport (Sir Peter Viggers), suggesting that powers that should be in the Bill are not there, while others have suggested that we could have got there more quickly. The truth is that there is still more finessing to do on this particular Bill. We could go on for a very long time, but much of that finessing has already been done in the other place on the draft Bill and by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. It is a better Bill for all of that. Issues were teased out in the various scrutinies of last year, and the Government have accepted many of them their response.
	The interest shown in the Chamber today demonstrates that this is not only a better Bill for all that scrutiny, but an exceedingly popular Bill. We will all remember "petition fish" coming to the House. It was an elaborate petition, fish-shaped and constructed in the form of scales, and it contained 170,000 signatures. As the Government response to the various scrutinies of last year noted, and as the Secretary of State acknowledged, there were 15,000 representations about the Bill. In response to our particular scrutiny alone, there were 1,000 postcards from members of the Ramblers Association, more than 2,000 from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and many from Friends of the Earth. Quite a significant number of individual non-campaign contributions also came in—from people in academic and research areas, energy supply, environment, fishing, heritage, local government, NGOs, ports, public bodies and sport and recreational organisations. That just demonstrates the complexity of the Bill, as it needs to deal with many competing tensions. If they did not exist, we might not need the Bill, but we certainly do need it—and we now need it urgently.
	The goal is ambitious, and rightly so. The high-level marine objectives that underpin the marine statement, "Our Seas: a shared resource", lay out a vision that I recommend to those who have not yet an opportunity to look at it. Many have mentioned the state of our seas and coasts at the moment, but this lays out a vision for the future. "In twenty years", it says,
	"our marine environment will be very different. We will have achieved our vision of clean, safe, health, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas...Effective integrated and strategic management of human activities in the marine environment will result in society getting better benefit from the use of the marine environment than previously, whilst its rich natural and cultural heritage are better protected".
	It further notes:
	"Climate change will have driven change both in relation to the environment itself and the way in which people use it. Renewable energy developments will be commonplace"—
	well, we hope they will; they had better be—
	"and Carbon Capture and Storage will be underway...However, marine planning means that activities in the marine environment will co-exist and that the impacts of different activities on each other and on the environment will be properly taken into account and managed consistently."
	Clearly, it is ambitious, and rightly so.
	The high-level marine objectives also describe how the five principles of sustainability will underpin what is achieved through the various measures and the coming into being of the marine management organisation. Those five principles are: achieving a sustainable marine economy; ensuring a strong, healthy and just society; living, of course, within environmental limits; promoting good governance on all of these issues; and, as others have mentioned, using sound science responsibly, which is very important.
	Let me move on to the different parts of the Bill, some of which will need improvement. The marine management organisation is the key delivery agency, so it is a landmark organisation. Many Members and many outside the House will view the MMO as a champion.
	My enthusiasm for the Bill is such that I hesitate to introduce a controversial note, but the choice of Newcastle as the venue remains a pretty incomprehensible decision as far as many of my constituents are concerned. Frankly, I have come to the conclusion that it might be better leaving the location where it is. As the Minister knows, Plymouth was very keen to be the host for the MMO and there was, of course, a KPMG report, which informed the Minister's decision. He will know that I have studied it probably at least as carefully as he has. It seemed in the end to come down to an empty DEFRA building. I know that there may have been more to his decision than just that report, but I believe that Liverpool should probably be as annoyed as the south-west. I am not even sure whether the building is going to be used, and I know that very few staff of the 100 or so that have already been mentioned—perhaps as few as one in 10 if my understanding is correct—will actually be moving north. That certainly puts at big risk the core of the Marine and Fisheries Agency staff already there who have significant expertise and skills. That considerable critical mass of expertise is at risk of loss, so I am sure that the Minister has plans to mitigate that—but I wonder at what cost.
	I have suggested to the Minister that one way of making up part of the loss would be the development in Plymouth an enhanced MMO satellite unit. There are outposts of the MFA at present—about 18, I think, around the country, and one of those is in Plymouth. I hope that the Minister and the chairman and chief executive will give serious consideration as to how to draw on best practice, which is the sort of thing we in the south-west are so rich in. I do not think that its extent and scale in the south-west can be rivalled anywhere. We have already mentioned Finding Sanctuary, which is at the cutting edge of what is happening. Our science is probably about three times up on the scale in comparison with the north-east. The Devon maritime forum, furthermore, has pioneered the way forward in resolving all the tensions between the different uses and, of course, the Tamar estuaries management is simply second to none.
	Moving on from that slightly controversial note, the other parts of the Bill deal with marine planning, marine licensing and the framework that the MMO will be responsible for introducing. On nature conservation, we have already spoken about the need to look at the representations on securing a coherent network of environmentally sustainable zones, using sound science and getting the right balance on the socio-economic aspects. As far as managing the marine fisheries is concerned, the new inshore fisheries and conservation authorities will have strengthened conservation duties, as introduced in the other place. That is a good thing. There is also a part of the Bill to deal with migratory and fresh water fisheries and important aspects of enforcement. Some issues about cross-warranting may still need to be teased out.
	These aspects are followed by excellent provisions on coastal access. I heard the reservations of Opposition Members, but the truth is that the third of the coast that has not thus far been designated could have been dealt with voluntarily a long time ago. It is a well-trodden path—forgive me for using that phrase—but when "voluntary" does not succeed, the Government need to bring in provisions to encourage the rest.
	The Bill is needed and there will be some lively debate on it. The Bill is also popular. It is predominantly a framework Bill. There are issues concerning resourcing, the relationship with the Infrastructure Planning Commission and the role of the science. Some of the work has been done in the other place but there remains much for this House to do in Committee. The next few weeks promise to be as productive as this time last year when we were discussing the Climate Change Act 2008, a groundbreaking and landmark piece of legislation. So, too, will be this Bill, and I will take a keen interest in it between now and when it returns to this Chamber in its final stages.

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. The coastline that I know best is in my area and there are extensive walks along it from Spurn Point upwards and along the east Yorkshire coast.
	It is against this background that we must look at the impact that the Bill will have on businesses, homeowners and landowners up and down the English coastline. I would like to raise with the Minister the issue of the coastal access reports, which will be compiled by Natural England and handed to the Secretary of State. Having grudgingly accepted the need for a right of appeal mechanism, which is to be welcomed, the Government now need to set out how it will work in practice.
	On Report in the other place, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath said that Natural England must advertise a coastal access report and take reasonable steps to give notice of the report to those with a relevant interest in affected land and to certain bodies. What does that mean? How will affected landowners be informed if the proposed pathway cuts across their property? Will they be written to, or will they have to pick up the news some other way? If they feel that Natural England's proposals fail to strike a fair balance, how long will they have to make a representation to the Secretary of State? If the planning inspectorate, or whoever the appointed person is, recommends that the proposals are fair and proper, will the objectors have the right to appeal? Will the Minister spell out how that would work? The role of Natural England is extremely troubling. As the Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee warned last year,
	"the Bill places so much emphasis on simply trusting Natural England to 'get it right.'"
	Determining the make-up of the route is going to be an onerous and complex task.  [ Interruption. ] I think my phone has just made an emergency call. I apologise to the House. That is the problem with the BlackBerry. As the Committee said,
	"the Bill places so much emphasis on simply trusting Natural England to 'get it right.'"
	I wish BlackBerry would get its software right so that phones do not make emergency calls when sitting in your pocket.

Angela Smith: I absolutely agree. That is why I thought the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman's comments were unnecessary. They were also unwise. The parliamentary candidate who will stand against me in my new constituency attacked my question to the Prime Minister of last autumn about the marine Bill on the grounds of its irrelevance to my constituents, because, like the hon. Lady, I represent a landlocked constituency. It is, however, the headquarters of Natural England, which makes it clear that the whole of this House and this country have an interest in the provisions of this Bill. That attack did not go down well with my constituents, and it did not reflect well on the individual concerned. Any attempt to chip away at the consensus that has built up on this Bill is unnecessary and unhelpful. I therefore welcome the hon. Lady's comments.
	The provisions in the Bill relating to the marine environment are broadly to be welcomed, as they are intended to balance the sometimes very different interests that relate to that environment, and the establishment of a marine planning system is one of the central aspects of the Bill. The potential for the development of an ecologically coherent network of marine conservation zones has also been broadly welcomed by many environmental charities. However, some small amendments could still be implemented to make this not just a good Bill, but one to be truly proud of. We need to make sure, for instance, that the Lords amendment to clause 51 is maintained in the Bill, as it requires Ministers to seek to ensure that plans are prepared to cover all UK waters. That is very important if we are to cover both inshore and offshore marine interests.
	We need to make sure, too, that the marine management organisation is given an advisory role in relation to decisions made by the Infrastructure Planning Commission. The Planning Act 2008 gave local authorities a special role in terms of decisions made by the IPC for inland infrastructure projects. The MMO ought to be given the same rights in relation to the IPC as those enjoyed by local authorities under the 2008 Act.
	We also need to strengthen the clauses relating to the offences of reckless or intentional damage within a marine conservation zone. In particular, the blanket defence against damaging an MCZ by those who are carrying out fishing activities must be removed in the context of those activities that take place within 6 nautical miles of the coast—outside that 6 nautical mile-limit, that is not possible because EU legislation becomes relevant.
	Perhaps the biggest change we need to make to the Bill relates to clause 117, which requires a consideration of socio-economic factors when designating MCZs. My view—which has also been expressed across the Chamber and is shared by NGOs such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the wildlife trusts—is that although socio-economic issues are important, they should not be considered until the later management phase of developing an MCZ has been reached.
	In support of this view, I wish to refer to the part of the country where I grew up: the Humber estuary. The Humber is the UK's largest port complex, handling 14 per cent. of our international trade. It has an average of 40,000 ship movements per year. Industrial interests alongside the estuary include not only chemical works such as ICI—and Courtaulds and Titan, as were—but the now infamous oil refineries of Lindsey and Conoco. My family has made much of its living over the past 40 years through deep-sea fishing and working in the chemical factories and refineries. I therefore completely understand the importance of socio-economic factors in terms of the marine environment.
	The Humber also supports a rich variety of habitats and species. Because the estuary is so industrial, it is often not understood that it is also very important in terms of conservation. It is recognised as one of the most important estuaries in Europe for over-wintering birds, and it supports nine species of international importance. It is designated as a special area of conservation under the EU habitats directive and a special protection area under the EU birds directive. The area also encompasses numerous nationally important sites of special scientific interest as designated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. As we know, SSSIs are determined purely on a scientific and conservation basis; no other factors, including socio-economic, are allowed to be considered when SSSIs are so designated. If areas as important as the Humber estuary can on numerous occasions enjoy protection through all the directives I have mentioned and SSSI status and those protections can co-exist alongside the industrial activity that we know is critical to the economy not just of the Humber but of the whole of the north, surely we can put together a Bill that considers only the scientific evidence when it comes to designating marine conservation zones.

Mark Williams: I, too, welcome this popular, long-awaited and much-needed Bill. During my last four years in this place, there has been a growing sense of frustration among my constituents at the fact that, despite perceived infringements in Cardigan bay, the protection promised by status such as "special area of conservation" has meant very little.
	Ceredigion adjoins Cardigan bay, which is an extremely important marine site. It is home to populations of bottlenose dolphins and harbour porpoises, and is designated as a special area of conservation under the EC habitats directive. I want to focus on two concerns that have arisen in the past two years, and I hope that the Bill, through marine conservation zones and other such provisions, will give my constituents the guarantees that are required.
	In 2006, two unnamed companies applied for licences for exploratory oil and gas drilling for three blocks inside or adjacent to the SAC. I do not want to go too deeply into the evidence of the harm that such drilling would cause—my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) mentioned the disturbance to marine mammals—but concern was expressed by many organisations, such as the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, Friends of the Earth, Friends of Cardigan Bay, George Monbiot and, eventually, the Countryside Council for Wales. A local group, "Save our Sea", was formed to fight the plan to drill. I pay tribute not just to its work on that campaign, but on its continuing work to preserve Cardigan bay's marine environment.
	After an extremely hard fight—letters flowed back and forth, petitions were presented in this House and there were ministerial meetings—the then Department of Trade and Industry opted not to grant licences because not enough was known about the impact on the dolphin population. What astonished me then, and still does to this day, is how little SAC status seemed to mean in protecting the bay. However, I emphasise that I welcome the Bill and look forward to the protection that I hope it will afford to areas such as mine.
	The blocks in Cardigan bay were delayed so that appropriate assessments could be carried out and the environmental issues examined further, but there was no certain presumption against drilling and very little attention seemed to be paid to the strictures of the habitats directive. I am concerned that the position regarding oil and gas licensing remains unclear in the Bill, and I ask the Minister to reflect on how the principle of conservation can be equated with the economic benefits of oil and gas. That is an important point. As is clear from the speeches of Members throughout the House today, we are still looking for that balance between socio-economic demands and legitimate conservation demands.
	My second concern regarding the lack of protection in Cardigan bay has grown in the past year as a result of the difficulties we have faced in attempting to curtail large-scale industrial scallop dredging. I should state right away that there is no issue with small-scale scallop fishing. There is still a small functioning fleet in Cardigan bay, and it is local fishermen who are among the worst affected as the dredgers churn up the sea bed, damaging local habitats and biodiversity, which in the long term could have a devastating effect on sustainable fishing in the bay.
	Things have got out of hand, and existing mechanisms seem unable to deal with the problem. A colleague of mine on Ceredigion county council was told by local fishermen that out on the bay, before the season was closed, there were some 70 dredgers. That is many more than the number of licences issued by the "local"—I use the word loosely—sea fisheries committee, the North Western and North Wales sea fisheries committee. There is a perception that as legitimate action has been taken in Lyme bay, and in the Isles of Scilly in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, the problem has been shunted around the coast of the United Kingdom.
	We have had some difficulty pursuing the matter, as responsibilities are divided between the UK Government and the Welsh Assembly Government, so I very much welcome the devolution of all fisheries responsibilities to Wales under the Bill. However, I echo the concerns raised by the hon. Members for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), and for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire (Nick Ainger), about resourcing.
	I welcome the fact that sea fisheries committees will be abolished. I regret to say that I do not feel that sustainability and environmental concerns were always at the forefront of their deliberations. That has not always been the fault of individual members; it is more to do with how committees were constituted and the fact that immediate fishing activities were the focus of their decisions, rather than long-term goals on sustainability. As the power is to be devolved to the Assembly Government, I will confine my concerns to the new fisheries regime for Wales.
	The Assembly Government have indicated their desire to bring that power in-house, and I have no qualms about that, provided they are able to retain and use necessary expertise to manage fisheries. However, some campaigning groups, and indeed some people in the Assembly, feel that the Bill should be more explicit in ensuring that the Assembly Government promote sustainable fishing. I know that Elin Jones—our Minister for Rural Affairs in Wales and the Assembly Member for my constituency—is committed to doing that. I have no doubt that she will ensure that the Assembly Government promote sustainability in fishing, but I would be interested to hear what Ministers have to say about discussions held with her. Would they be happy to accept that duty, and are the Assembly Government happy with the extent of the powers that they are being given?
	The establishment of marine conservation zones is a welcome step; none of us should understate it. Having listened to the debate, I am now more inclined to move towards the graded approach advanced by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who spoke for the Conservatives. I am perhaps even more supportive of the line taken by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, who said that there should be a separate category of added protection. I have no doubt that that will resonate strongly with my constituents who have raised concerns.
	I appreciate that economic and social factors must be considered as part of the broader marine planning system, but I support the assertion that ultimately there should be some highly protected areas that are, in effect, no-go zones for damaging activities. It is the fear of some, including me, that because of way the legislation is written, it will allow hugely significant environmental and scientific sites to be destroyed because of an overriding, compelling economic argument. I would contend that some sites are simply too important for any considerations to override their protection. I do not think that it is the Government's intention that economic arguments should ultimately trump the most important environmental ones. I hope that they will consider that higher added level of protection when the Bill is in Committee.
	There have been concerns about clause 117(7), which allows the appropriate authority to
	"have regard to any economic or social consequences"
	when designating a site, critically at the point of designation. Site designation must be carried out on a purely environmental and scientific basis. It is one thing to consider the economic impact of individual activities, but designation must be made on the basis of what is in the zone, and what we need to protect. The effect of the clause currently is to suggest that no matter how compelling the environmental argument for designating a site, it could be overridden. That is a dangerous route to go down. I hope that the Government will consider that point.
	I think that it was the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) who made the point about ensuring sufficient time for consideration of the Bill; that is important. We are talking about a highly complex issue. The eyes of a vast number of people are on the House as we consider the Bill to ensure that this once-in-a-lifetime Bill is afforded the status it requires and that our marine areas are protected in the way they should be.
	I live 200 yd from the sea. The advice from the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), who is no longer in the Chamber, was that we should all go to a coastal area and breathe in the air—I do that every week. I would commend doing so to people in the landlocked constituency of Sheffield, Hillsborough, and to others. My constituents are at the forefront of promoting eco-tourism. We have a beautiful coastline in Ceredigion and west Wales, and I recommend it without any hesitation to hon. Members.

Martin Salter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing that point to my attention, but I was talking about landowners in general. The serious point—on which I think I will find common ground with my neighbour, the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon)—is the little glitch in the Bill's drafting on the difference between tenants and landowners. Under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000—CROW—there is an appeals process, which is not only open to landowners, but to sporting tenants. For instance, that might mean the local angling club, which has some fishing on the tidal Stour in Dorset. It might mean the local wildfowling club—wildfowling is a far more working class sport than shooting on grouse moors. Under the CROW, the Labour Government gave the owner of the grouse moor the right to lodge an appeal, and the shooters on that moor have the same right. Under the Bill, however, the poor little wildfowling club will have no rights at all, if they are—as most of them are—sporting tenants.
	Many of us have received representations on that point from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, an organisation for which I have a lot of time. It says:
	"The problem revolves around the definition of 'a relevant interest in land' within the Bill. . . It differs from the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, because it excludes holders of sporting rights—which of course include fishing"
	and wildfowling clubs. The Association goes on to say:
	"It seems that the civil servants have a poor understanding of shooting"
	and recreational angling
	"on the coast and have taken a position based on the lack of knowledge. . . It is ironic to see a Labour government giving grouse moor owners a right of appeal in CROW but dismissing the rights of wildfowlers, rough shooters and pest controllers. We will return to that issue in Committee, and I am sure that we can resolve it."
	The Marine Bill is the mechanism by which we will deliver much of the salmon and freshwater fisheries review of 2001. We have waited eight years to put some of this into legislation. I have noticed a small technical issue regarding the sale of salmon and sea trout. A number of obsolete provisions in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 will be repealed under part 7 of the Bill, but the Government have left section 22 untouched. Surely that is also redundant, given that the dates when the sale of salmon and trout was prohibited no longer correspond to the close seasons for those species. Furthermore, we are giving the Environment Agency complete flexibility to set close season byelaws. We must return to this issue in Committee, but I wanted to put a marker down for the Whips to expect an amendment on that point.
	A few days ago, in my capacity as chair of the all-party angling group and my party's spokesman on angling, I convened a meeting with the new governing body for angling, the Angling Trust, which brought together representatives from coarse, game and sea fishing. It discussed several issues, some of which have already been mentioned. I welcome the demise of the sea fisheries committees—they were unbalanced—but we must ensure that there are at least as many recreational sea anglers on the new committees, the IFCAs, as there are commercial fishermen. If county councillors who have links with the commercial sector are on those committees, that must be declared; otherwise, we cannot get the balance right.
	I am delighted that officials in DEFRA have announced that, by and large, recreational sea angling will not be banned in the MCZs—it will be banned only in some of the marine protected areas. We have a unique opportunity to help with the enforcement of the MCZs. Recreational sea anglers would welcome the opportunity to fish in the buffer zones on the edge of the MCZs. Those would provide excellent fishing and it would also assist in enforcing the MCZ. It is all very well drawing imaginary lines in the sea, but unless anglers—who have a vested interest in reporting illegal commercial fishing—are there as the eyes and ears, we will have made policy in a vacuum. I want to see on the face of the Bill a definition to improve, develop and maintain fisheries, and to enhance their social and economic contribution through recreational angling.
	Finally, I turn to the freshwater part of the Bill—the bit that will enact the review. There is and has been an ongoing problem with fish thefts, especially in public fisheries. It is difficult to define who owns a fish or a stock of fish in, for example, the River Thames, much of which is tidal. The current system of byelaws is arcane and unenforceable. Yesterday, the Environment Agency began consultation on new legislation to make it an offence to take fish without permission. We have had problems, especially with people from other cultures who take fish for the pot and do not recognise our catch-and-release culture. I welcome the fact that we can overhaul outdated fisheries legislation and I am delighted that the Minister has agreed to use this Bill as a mechanism for delivering that review. I am also delighted that we will have an opportunity to protect eel fishing—eels are under particular threat at the moment. Finally, I ask the Minister to think again about the nonsense that the new sea fisheries committees would have responsibility for enforcing the tidal limit. That cannot be right.

James Gray: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and he is of course right. I shall say more about the south-west coastal path in a moment, and in particular the economic advantages that come from it. It is a wonderful path, and I have walked many parts of it. It was established not by Government diktat but by voluntary agreement between local authorities and the landowners to whom the patches of land involved belonged. The path goes most of the way round Devon and Cornwall and, although some sections remain incomplete, it owes its existence to entirely voluntary arrangements. I am very strongly in favour of that.
	It is also true that those landowners who did not want the path were persuaded to accept it by the large sums of money that local authorities were willing to pay them. That is perfectly legitimate: if a local authority wants a patch of land, or the use of it, why should it not be encouraged to pay large sums of money? However, the Bill does not provide that encouragement. It says that the Government will not pay large sums of money to landlords, but that they will simply drive their plans through.
	I very much welcome the improvements to the Bill achieved in the other place, and especially the introduction of a right of appeal. That is very important, and it something for which the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee called. I hope that the Government will allow that provision to remain.
	Other aspects of detail need to be improved, and the hon. Member for Reading, West raised a most interesting point about the definition of "landowner". Moreover, the Bill simply ignores the question of sporting rights, but that is also something that needs to be looked at. Members of local wildfowling or angling clubs do not necessarily want walkers right beside them, and I am sure it must be possible to find ways to push them further away.

Madeleine Moon: People listening to the debate cannot fail to notice the disproportionate number of Members from Wales who have spoken. We have heard contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Gower (Mr. Caton) and for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire (Nick Ainger) and the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams). I apologise for mistaking a Liberal Democrat for a Plaid Cymru Member—it can happen in Wales. We have also heard from the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and I am from Bridgend.
	Although it may seem ironic, more than 50 per cent. of Wales has a boundary with the sea, so the Bill is highly important to us. It is of course even more ironic that one of the few completely landlocked constituencies—Ogmore to my north—is the home of the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who is partly responsible for the Bill. I can, however, advise the House that he regularly swoops down to Porthcawl from his eyrie at the top of the Llynfi valley, so he has wide understanding of coastal access issues.
	Several hon. Members have said that the Bill is a once in a lifetime opportunity to protect our marine environment for future generations. It is a good Bill, largely because the Government have been open to discussion with NGOs and colleagues, but it is still possible to make it a great Bill. Like other Members, I must declare an interest, having been a long-term member of the RSPB. I would like to thank the NGOs that have worked closely with Members, such as the RSPB, the WWF, the Wildlife Trusts, which had a wonderful scheme for collecting petitions on a petition fish, the Marine Conservation Society, and the Porthcawl Environment Trust.
	As has been said, the UK's seas are among the richest in the world—26 species of sea birds nest around the UK coastline, and 15 of those species, including guillemots, puffins and razor-bills, nest in greater numbers in the UK than in any other European country. Six per cent. of the Welsh work force is employed in work closely related to the coast and marine environment. A healthy maritime economy, whether it is fishing, tourism or catering, relies on a healthy sea. Thirty per cent. of Welsh waters are of European importance. To protect this heritage, we need the right tools for the job.
	As an island nation, we have a vast sea area, three times larger than our land area, and it harbours an amazing wealth of wildlife. Only 2.2 per cent. of our sea is protected, and that cannot be acceptable. I am pleased that in Wales the marine conservation areas around the islands of Skomer and Lundy set an example of what can be achieved. It is frightening to think that our nature reserves at sea are the equivalent of having in the UK a single nature reserve the size of Kensington gardens.
	Without protection of our seas, activity by the fishing industry and climate change are having a devastating cumulative effect on the marine ecosystem, causing some of our marine wildlife to decline, sometimes irrevocably.

Madeleine Moon: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I intend to mention the subject briefly later in my speech.
	The marine management organisation should be the true marine champion, fully and equally engaged with all marine sectors and interests. Its role must be a proactive one as a statutory adviser to the infrastructure planning commission, with a remit to further sustainable development. We must accept that we can no longer push the marine environment beyond its limits or capacity to absorb man's abuses and exploitation of the sea.
	The proposed IPC must have a statutory duty to seek and take account of the advice of the MMO on all applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects that are likely to impact upon the marine environment. An obvious example is the Severn barrage mentioned by my hon. Friend. That would cause a fundamental change to the unique nature of the Severn estuary and the wildlife there. The IPC must be required to give details of the reasons for decisions made and specify how the advice provided by the MMO has influenced its decisions. Only then can there be the transparency that we need.
	I have a number of concerns relating to marine conservation zones. The priority of the Bill is that it should deliver a better framework for marine nature conservation which, as everyone has agreed, currently lags behind land-based conservation. The Government have a commitment under the world summit on sustainable development to establish a representative network of marine protection areas by 2012, and they have the same commitment under the OSPAR convention to do so by 2010. The proposals for the main conservation zones are welcome steps towards achieving that commitment, but there is a clear need to create an ecologically coherent network of such zones. I welcome the addition of clause 123(6) to (8), requiring Ministers both to prepare a statement setting out the principles that they will follow when developing the UK network of marine protection areas, and to lay that statement before the appropriate legislature, along with further details on the principles of ecological coherence in the explanatory notes to the Bill as published in the Commons.
	If we are to tackle the threats to marine biodiversity, marine plans covering all UK waters must be developed and based on ecosystems, not on administrative boundaries. That is clearly a role for the statutory nature conservation bodies, but steps can be taken to strengthen the marine conservation zones so that the Bill delivers the most robust protection for UK sea life and sea birds. Like other speakers, I am concerned that the social and economic consequences of designating a site can be taken into account when making a decision about whether to designate. Many speakers have made that point, and I shall not take it further, but regional or even local socio-economic considerations must not be allowed to override national and international conservation objectives.
	Marine conservation zones must be identified using sound scientific and ecological criteria alone. If a site is important to biodiversity, it should be recognised and designated. If we do not make that change, we will find it almost impossible to designate a coherent and comprehensive network of protected areas. If we keep the measure in the Bill, we are likely to end up with a few sparse conservation zones in leftover areas of the sea to which no other social or economic interest group has laid claim. That will not be sufficient to protect our marine wildlife. My right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) talked about socio-economic interests having a place, and I agree, but they should be considered in the latter stages when developing site management. That is how the process works for protected sites on land.
	Many organisations are concerned that the Bill does not mention highly protected sites. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that in Wales, the Welsh Assembly Government have announced their intention to designate highly protected marine reserves to improve marine protection in territorial waters. I am hopeful that the UK Government will make the same commitment. A clear reference in the Bill to the network of marine protected areas, including some highly protected sites, would make stakeholders aware that the sites were a protection measure for marine wildlife and habitats, and, equally importantly, ensure that future Governments were not able to step back from the great intentions of this Government.
	The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has produced a report highlighting more than 70 sites of national importance—around the UK and in the waters adjacent to breeding seabird colonies—that should be designated as conservation zones. These include the waters around Flat Holm in the Bristol channel, which are important for lesser black-backed gulls. I should welcome an assurance from the Minister that such sites will be provided with full protection.
	Research by Bangor university, which is renowned for its department of marine biology, suggests that anywhere between 14 and 20 per cent. of our seas must be protected to ensure that the UK meets its biodiversity targets. It may not be suitable to stipulate a specific figure in the Bill, but I should welcome the Minister's confirmation of how he plans to ensure that we do not simply aim for, or end up with, the minimum protection required.
	It is a matter of great concern that the Bill does not provide any duty towards sustainable inshore fisheries management in Wales—in contrast to the detailed provisions set out for England, where inshore fisheries and conservation authorities will be the new management bodies. A specific responsibility for sustainable fisheries management and the promotion of marine conservation zones should be placed on Welsh Ministers, along with a commitment to report to the National Assembly in order to create long-lasting certainty and a trail of accountability. The Bill presents the one opportunity for such a legal and lasting commitment, as the National Assembly has no power to lay down such duties. Wales must not be left with a lower standard of certainty and accountability for fisheries management than England.
	I am fortunate in that my constituency contains the Glamorgan heritage coast and the Newton dunes local nature reserve to the east of the coastal resort of Porthcawl, where I live, Locks Common local nature reserve in the heart of the resort, and Kenfig national nature reserve and the European Union special area for conservation to the west. Along our coast, the public can watch thousands of Manx shearwaters, fulmars and gannets, as well as seals and harbour porpoises. We must ensure that that coast is accessible to people with disabilities as well as the able-bodied, so that they too are allowed to enjoy the new opportunities for exploration.
	The waters around Wales and the rest of Britain are a unique and special environment, hosting internationally important populations of species of seabird and other marine wildlife. It is therefore essential for the Bill to deliver not just adequate protection, but the best protection possible.

Barry Gardiner: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and I agree with, I think, every word that he said.
	A hundred years ago in 1909, most of the British fishing fleet had no engines. The boats were sailboats, and virtually all of them were made of wood. Not one had sonar to identify where shoals of fish were. Today, our fishermen have a fleet of modern, steel-enclosed, sonar-equipped, satellite-guided vessels. They have weighted and gated trawl nets that extend for 2.5 km, yet the astonishing fact is that the British fishermen of 100 years ago caught 13 times more fish than we do today. For all our modern technology, we can do little more than vacuum up ever smaller fish in ever smaller numbers. We are fishing down the food chain.
	Almost exactly two months ago, the European Commission put out its green paper on the common fisheries policy. Among its findings, we learn that 88 per cent. of the EU's stocks are overfished and that 93 per cent. of North sea cod are caught before they can breed. Globally the position is little better, with 80 per cent. of marine stocks either fully exploited or over-exploited.
	A paper published in  Nature six years ago, in 2003, concluded with the stark assessment that the global oceans had lost more than 90 per cent. of large predatory fish. However, if the average length of the fish caught off the west coast of Newfoundland fell by 1 metre between 1957 and 2000—and it did—we must not imagine that we are dealing with a collapse simply of fish and fish stocks. Rather, we are dealing with a collapse of whole eco-systems. Both target species and a huge biomass of by-catch species have been removed from continental shelf seas. With the mechanical impact of fishing gear being dragged across the sea bottom, we have seen the dreadful alteration of eco-system structure and habitat degradation.
	By-catch is not simply other fish. It includes the death of 40,000 albatrosses a year from long-line baited hooks in the Southern ocean, on lines that stretch for an almost unbelievable 150 kilometres. By-catch also includes the 400,000 dolphins caught and drowned in yellowfin tuna nets. The point is that if we impact on one species, we impact on the whole eco-system. That is why the loss of sand eels around the UK coast has, in turn, been accompanied by a startling decline in arctic terns, kittiwakes, guillemots and puffins.
	However, it is not just what we take out of the sea that alters those eco-systems. The input into coastal waters of sediment, sewage and nutrients from agriculture and industry has led to widespread eutrophication. Dead zones are now common in the Baltic sea, the Kattegat, the Black sea and the gulf of Mexico. In those areas, it is as though evolution were running in reverse, as higher trophic fish give way to lower trophic species, corals and sea lions die, and jellyfish become the dominant planktivores in a soup of algae and bacteria. The senior researcher at the Scripps institution of oceanography has called the process "the rise of slime".
	Not only is the loss of biodiversity devastating to the food supply of a global population that is predicted to rise from 6.7 billion to at least 9 billion by 2050, but there is increasing evidence that species diversity is vital for the resilience of marine fisheries. A study in  Science by Worm et al in 2006 found that low diversity is clearly connected with low productivity of fisheries and that commercial fisheries face collapse in less than 50 years unless the trends are reversed. The study found that low biodiversity is associated with lower fishery productivity and more frequent collapses of fish stocks. It also found a lower propensity to recover after overfishing than in eco-systems that were naturally rich in biodiversity.
	Perhaps nowhere is the fragility of our marine eco-systems seen better than in the effects of global warming and rising levels of CO2 in our atmosphere on coral reefs. Some of the carbon dissolves in the upper layers of the ocean, making today's water 30 per cent. more acidic than before the industrial revolution. That acidity affects the pteropods and other forms of life with calcium carbonate shells or skeletons. Coral is particularly at risk from the acidification of the oceans. Coral reefs are some of the oldest and certainly some of the longest-living structures on the planet. One quarter of all sea species spend at least part of their lives in a reef. Globally, 500 million people depend on such reefs for their food and livelihoods. Yet coral bleaching from warmer oceans and increased acidification from higher atmospheric CO2 are putting increased stress on reef ecosystems. Last year, the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network published a paper entitled "Status of Coral Reefs of the World", in which it was estimated that 19 per cent. of coral reefs were already lost, with a further 15 per cent. under imminent threat and a further 20 per cent. facing loss before 2050.
	To us in Britain, coral reefs sound distinctly tropical and remote, but cold water coral is particularly at risk from acidification, because colder seas tend to be more acidic anyway. Only 11 years ago, here in the UK, we saw the destruction of part of the Darwin mounds, the extensive colonies of cold water coral off the north-west coast of Scotland, almost as soon as they were discovered. The reason for that ecological vandalism was that trawlermen were eager to get at the large bounty of fish that gravitated to the reef. A bulldozer with an aqualung could not have done a better job of destroying it.
	I have tried to set out clearly the very real need upon which this Bill is predicated. In that the Bill aims to initiate flexible, integrated coastal zone management in UK waters, including inshore areas and the exclusive economic zone, it is the first serious attempt to set out in statute a framework for marine planning and licensing and a coherent network of marine protected areas that can help to manage our marine environment. Much of this task is being placed under the authority of the new marine management organisation, and offshore fisheries are managed generally under the auspices of the EU common fisheries policy. It is worthy of note—and, of course, welcome—that the Commission is currently reviewing the CFP. I urge the Secretary of State to ensure that the timing of the Bill is propitious in ensuring a seamless integration with a revised CFP.
	I want to turn briefly to some of the elements of the Bill that have been mentioned so far, and particularly to the need to take into account socio-economic factors. Section 4.2 of the European Commission's green paper makes an important point, which the Bill as it stands does not yet fully take into account. It states:
	"Economic and social sustainability require productive fish stocks and healthy marine ecosystems. The economic and social viability of fisheries can only result from restoring the productivity of fish stocks. There is, therefore, no conflict between ecological, economic and social objectives in the long term. However, these objectives can and do clash in the short term, especially when fishing opportunities have to be temporarily reduced in order to rebuild overexploited stocks. Social objectives such as employment have often been invoked to advocate more generous short-term fishing opportunities: the result has always been to further jeopardise the state of the stocks and the future of the fishermen who make a living out of them."
	I believe that Ministers would do well to heed that advice and to integrate it into the body of the Bill. The prioritisation of short-term socio-economic considerations has led to the setting of quotas for European fish stocks 48 per cent. above scientific recommendations, resulting in chronic overfishing in the European area. Earlier, the Secretary of State referred to the need to take sound scientific advice, and I absolutely agree with him on that. Tragically, however, history shows that politicians have always been keen to ignore that scientific advice when socio-economic and political considerations have come into play.
	The other issue is that of quantity versus quality, and the question of whether we should designate a proportion of the sea for marine conservation zones. There is now considerable scientific literature discussing the area of marine habitats that need to be protected to ensure the viability of the protected habitats and to contribute substantially to fisheries management. Reviews of that literature by Balmford et al in 2004 suggest that a target to sustain fisheries outside marine protected areas is in the region of between 10 and 50 per cent. of the area of the world's oceans, with a modal value of approximately 30 per cent. In addition, the World Parks Congress has explicitly called for marine reserves to cover 20 to 30 per cent. of all marine habitats by 2012. It is important to look at the science in this context, because this is not simply a question of quality; quantity affects quality, and that factor, too, must be integrated into the Bill.
	I agree with what hon. Members have already said about the issue of disturbance. In relation to the defence, it is ridiculous that an act carried out for the purpose or in the course of—

Richard Benyon: First, may I warmly welcome you, Mr. Speaker, to your position, and add that it is fitting that the first debate that you are overseeing in this House is of such importance?
	It is a great pleasure to be winding up on behalf of the official Opposition. I must apologise to Members if there is a slight aura of fish around me today, but I was at Billingsgate at 6 o'clock this morning to discuss, in accordance with my shadow Front-Bench duties, marine sustainability. I am therefore coming to this debate fizzing with enthusiasm for the subject, my mind stimulated by omega 3, a vital ingredient in fish.
	As many hon. Members have said, we are discussing a very important issue, and we have had an excellent debate. This is an historic opportunity to put a landmark Bill on to the statute book, providing a framework for the protection of the marine environment for future generations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) said, the Conservatives have pushed for a marine Bill for a number of years, and it is with great pleasure that we see it enter the Commons, and in a much better state than it entered the other place. We may take a lesson from that: their lordships did not have a programme motion or a guillotine in place, yet they managed to tease out so many more issues and thereby improve the Bill. It is a credit to their lordships that we now have a serious Bill that will implement some very positive conservation measures for our seas and give the public greater access to our coastline. There is, however, still some work to be done before this Bill reaches its full potential.
	There have been a number of excellent contributions this evening, but may I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall)? If this Bill could have a paternity test, he would be the daddy, as it was his idea all those years ago in his private Member's Bill. He made an excellent speech, which was full of passion and love for our seas and its birdlife. He gave us a great mental glimpse of the sea, where we should take our battered souls for restoration. There can be no better advice than that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs spoke about the need to put this in a European context. There is no point in protecting our seas from our own fishermen if we are not going to get that protection secured at the European level. This Bill must, therefore, go hand in glove with common fisheries policy reform. The right hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) made an important contribution, in which he spoke about the need for differentiation between types of marine conservation zone. Like many other Members, he also talked about the compatibility between MCZs and wind generation in terms of protection. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Sir Peter Viggers) said that our overall priority must be conservation. As he and many hon. Members said, we have one chance in a generation. He is right and I am deeply conscious of that fact, as are all who are involved in this Bill.
	The hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire (Nick Ainger) spoke about how the Bill will impact on his constituency and pointed out that its coastline incorporates tourism, energy, conservation and many other uses. He spoke about the need for expertise in the marine management organisation, and I entirely concur with his view that engineering expertise is as important as scientific understanding.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke about tourism—an issue that I will come back to—in the context of coastal access. It is vital to understand that in order to encourage people to visit our coastline, it is not good enough just to have a coastal path: we have to work with local authorities to get access points, which is why it is so important that local authorities become involved in the creation of car parks and other connecting points.
	Some of my hon. Friends expressed legitimate concerns about the Bill's coastal access provisions. I can assure them that I take their concerns very seriously; there is much to be teased out in Committee. I know a little bit about providing access in the countryside. I know how voluntary access arrangements work, and I will represent their views as best I can in Committee.
	The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams) spoke about how little protection was afforded to Cardigan bay under special area of conservation status. We all know what has happened in Cardigan bay, and we will have those factors in mind as we progress the Bill.
	The hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) made a moving plea on behalf of dukes and landed estates for their sporting rights. I can assure him that the Opposition are deeply mindful of hard-working members of the public with wildfowling rights, for example. We will bear such issues in mind, and I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman to support the interests of all legitimate users of coastal Britain.
	The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) spoke with real passion about her own coastline and how the Bill will enhance and help the environment in her constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) raised the important point made by the film "The End of the Line" and said that although we may have yet to experience peak oil, we have certainly experienced peak fish. We have to represent these views as we progress the Bill. A number of other Members made important points that I do not have time to cover.
	The health of the marine environment is a critical issue on which we must act immediately if we are to tackle climate change and secure the sustainability of our fisheries and the conservation of endangered marine flora and fauna. It is no exaggeration to say that the UK marine environment is in trouble. Some important fish stocks are in dire straits. Marine biodiversity is suffering, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs pointed out, given that more than 50 per cent. of the UK's total biodiversity is found in our seas, this presents a challenge that we must grasp.
	It is a matter of collective failure that we have long since waved goodbye to our 2010 biodiversity targets. However, the Bill provides us with a unique opportunity to tackle problems in the marine environment head-on, effectively and coherently. This is not a Bill for the here and now. It has to be robust enough to address fast-changing technologies, as discussed by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner). In discussing technologies in Strangford loch, which were developed in my constituency, he made a very important point. We have to address fast-changing technologies in power generation in particular, and be flexible enough to deal with changing environmental factors in our seas. Areas considered relatively benign in conservation terms today may be fragile ecosystems in desperate need of protection in 10 or 20 years' time.
	Marine conservation zones have the potential to be an extremely effective conservation tool that will make a real difference to the marine environment, but that will happen only if they form a coherent, dynamic and flexible network that can respond to the changing needs of our seas.
	There are those who, for wholly understandable motives, wish us to commit to a clear percentage of sea to be protected. The problem with an arbitrary figure is that it can be relatively easily reached by protecting areas of relatively little ecological benefit. Let us be honest: there are some difficult decisions ahead, as the hon. Member for Reading, West, said. Ministers, now and in future, may have to make difficult choices affecting communities on our coasts. An arbitrary figure would be more likely to encourage people to take the path of least resistance to achieve a headline percentage, when what is needed is a science-based, ecologically coherent decision process.
	I was pleased to see that in the other place further clarification of the nature of MCZ networks was achieved. However, during the Bill's passage through this House, I hope to gain further clarification of how the Government intend to ensure the ecologically coherent network that our seas so desperately need. I heard this morning, on my visit to Billingsgate, about how the mapping of our inshore waters can be completed by the end of 2010; that can form the basis of the protection zones that we need.
	We must avoid closing ourselves off to the potential benefits of dual use—an issue mentioned by the right hon. Member for Scunthorpe—within appropriate MCZs. For example, in a flexible network, there may be opportunities for offshore wind to work in harmony with the conservation aims of an MCZ while aiding enforcement. To achieve the successful protection of marine areas, proposals for MCZs need to have integrity, and integrity will come only from a widespread, transparent consultation process—a point made by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton). If designations are deemed to be the property of a few interested parties, rather than being based on the accepted view of many, they will lack the legitimacy that they need to succeed.
	As Lord Taylor of Holbeach said in the Lords, the MMO needs to be the standard bearer for our seas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs said, although the role of the MMO has been bolstered by some amendments in the Lords, we remain concerned about its relationship with the Infrastructure Planning Commission. If the MMO is to be able effectively to manage planning within our seas, it should have control of everything in the marine environment. By giving the MMO piecemeal control we are diluting its role, and therefore its effectiveness.
	There is concern about the state of preparedness for the MMO. In a very short time, we will need to appoint a chairman, a chief executive and a board. I am particularly concerned about the expertise currently found in the Marine and Fisheries Agency. Many of its staff have said that they are unwilling to move to the new organisation, or have not been consulted enough on the move. It is crucial that we carry them with us.
	In the last few moments available to me, I should like to mention coastal access. A number of hon. Members raised important points on that issue, some of which I have covered. Although we agree with the Government that it is an honourable ambition to increase access to our coastline, the Government have introduced the measure in a rather blunt fashion. I am delighted that, in the other place, the Government conceded the need for an independent right of appeal; to their credit, they listened to the very good arguments put forward. However, there remain concerns about the legitimate rights of landowners, land managers and small coastal businesses, over whose land the path will travel. I give notice to the Under-Secretary that there are issues of safety, liability, privacy and—most importantly, perhaps—biosecurity that we need to address in Committee; we will need to make improvements in respect of those issues.
	In conclusion, I assure the House that our intention is to persist with the positive, consensual attitude adopted in another place to carrying the Bill through its stages. It is vital that it gets on to the statute book as soon as possible, but not at the expense of proper, diligent examination in Committee. Those who believe that concern for our marine environment is the sole interest of fishermen and conservationists make a big mistake. There is growing concern across the country about falling fish stocks and damage to our marine environment, as well as increasing understanding of the fundamental role that our seas play in everyone's quality of life, as a key component in the climate change debate.
	The many thousands of people who have seen the film discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex, "The End of the Line", will have seen a compelling critique of the global marine environment. They are asking politicians here and abroad legitimate questions about our stewardship of the seas. Now is not the time to be half-hearted or timid. It is our duty to make sure that we create robust, effective legislation. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity that we simply cannot miss.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I welcome you, Mr. Speaker, to the Chair on the occasion of these august proceedings. It is an apt debate for you to join us on, because—as has already been pointed out—this is a once in a lifetime opportunity and a historic Bill. Those phrases are often over-used, but it is true in this case. This is the first Bill over whose Second Reading you have presided and, if we get it right, it will be a landmark not only for this place, but for this country, Europe and the rest of world. We will lead the way in marine management for future generations.
	I am fortunate, and I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North (Ann McKechin), and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State feel fortunate too, to inherit this Bill from a succession of very able Ministers, many of whom have spoken in this debate today. They have advocated this approach, and we are fortunate in being able to take it on to the next stage.
	I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon), who has taken a constructive approach. We saw the same in the other place, and that is how we will make progress. We need to focus on the important issues that will refine, improve and strengthen the Bill. A strong Bill went into the other place, and an even stronger one has come out of it. There may be more that we can do, but we will discuss that in Committee.
	I am tempted to say "Thank the Lord" that we have reached this position. I am excited that the Bill will have its Second Reading tonight and look forward to the Committee stage. Perhaps I should say "Thank the Lords", but I am not supposed to refer to them in that way, so I shall just say thanks to the other place. Thanks to its work, we have a stronger and clearer general objective for the marine management organisation in relation to sustainable development, its use of science and other evidence to underpin decision-making, and its relationship with the Infrastructure Planning Commission. We also have additional provisions for parliamentary scrutiny with new duties on Ministers to report on marine planning progress; to make a statement to Parliament on principles to be followed in implementing the duty to contribute to a network of marine conservation sites; and to lay sustainable development guidance for the MMO before Parliament, which is where it should be. We also have a requirement on Government to publish a sustainability appraisal of the marine documents, a clearer description of roles for local authorities in marine licensing and coastal access, a clearer duty to designate marine conservation zones, the introduction of a 12-month time limit to designation once intention has been published, and the addition of reckless damage into general offences. Finally, and not least—as has been remarked—we have the addition of the procedure for making objections and representations about coastal access reports.
	The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) mentioned delay, but after a long period of pre-legislative scrutiny, we now have a very good Bill. He referred to the links with the Infrastructure Planning Commission and his objections to that body as it stands. The Bill and the Planning Act 2008 have been developed in parallel, and the roles of the marine management organisation and the IPC are complementary. The marine management organisation will license most projects and developments in English territorial and UK offshore waters, which include marinas, coastal habitat creation, aggregate dredging and renewable energy installations.
	The IPC, as set out in the Planning Act 2008, will consider applications for "nationally significant" infrastructure projects. In the marine area, that means the largest ports and renewable energy installations that will generate more than 100 MW of power. When the IPC is the consenting authority, the MMO will lend its expertise through the IPC and will act in a close advisory role on the marine aspects of each project. After consent has been given the MMO will monitor and enforce those consent conditions. As the Bill went through the other place, we considered that relationship and, although we need to bolt it down, I think that we have done that very effectively.
	The Government listened very closely to the debates in the other place on the relationship between the two bodies and agreed to reflect in primary legislation the important role that the MMO will have in applications for development consent by bringing forward amendments to the Planning Act 2008. So, as the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs remarked, we have been a listening Government and we have acted on many of these parts of the Bill.
	Several hon. Members remarked on aspects of socio-economic criteria in site designation. Marine conservation zone site proposals will be based on scientific evidence and the scientific evidence will be the first consideration in the designation of each site. There will obviously be some cases in which the need for conservation must prevail, but there will be other cases where we have options, particularly when designating representative sites. We might have more choice of potential locations and about the size and shape of the marine conservation zones.
	In such circumstances, it would be sensible and appropriate to be able to take account of socio-economic considerations in deciding where a site or a group of sites should be designated. We would be shooting ourselves in the foot if we did not take reasonable steps to minimise the impact of MCZs on what, as has rightly been pointed out, could be vital economic activity or could be vital to our energy needs—especially if we can do so while still achieving our conservation objectives.
	Let me turn to the issue of ecologically coherent networks. Ministers in the other place and I have repeatedly made it clear that we intend to subscribe to those networks. The Government are fully committed to contributing to an ecologically coherent network. We have included three core principles in clause 123(3) that set out the basis of the UK network. They are based on the definition of ecological coherence developed for OSPAR, the convention for the protection of the marine environment of the north-east Atlantic. Let me give the House the three underpinning principles from OSPAR which ensure that we will deliver that ecologically coherent network. The first is that it should contribute to the conservation of the marine environment, the second is that it should protect features that represent a range of features present in the UK marine area and the third is that it should reflect the fact that conservation of a feature may require more than one site to be designated. Those are the principles. The definition of an ecologically coherent network, as we all know, can vary all the time. There might be a better version as time goes by. We might need to improve it. Let us not come back to primary legislation to do that—let us put the principles in, deal with them and then move on.
	The commitment in clause 123(3), alongside the requirement to satisfy our European and international commitments, as found in clause 124(4), and the clear duty to designate marine conservation zones effectively enables the Government to deliver a network that is ecologically coherent. However, let me go further. To ensure transparency in the principles that we will use to design the network and further to demonstrate the Government's commitment, we amended the Bill on Third Reading in the other place to insert clause 123(6) and (7). Those subsections require the appropriate authority—Scottish and Welsh Ministers and the Secretary of State—to lay a statement before the relevant legislature, setting out the principles that it will follow in designating areas so as to contribute to that network. Statements might also include other matters that the relevant Minister considers to be relevant. The statement must be made within two months of the commencement of the Bill's nature conservation provisions, must be kept under review and must be updated if necessary. Those safeguards will allow us to take the concept forward as it evolves, and make sure that we report back so that people can hear about what we are delivering. In the other place, Lord Eden of Winton summed this up very well when he said:
	"It is important that the legislation should contain sufficient flexibility to allow improvements to be generated as further knowledge is gained from the experience of the establishment of marine conservation zones."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 8 June 2009; Vol. 711, c. 435.]
	I turn now to aspects of the Bill mentioned by other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs and others raised the involvement of local authorities in the designation and implementation of the coastal path. The Government's intention has always been to involve local authorities fully in many aspects of the Bill. We see them as extremely important partners, not least in the coastal access project. Following the constructive discussions that we had in the other place, we have amended the Bill to make that clear.
	We believe that the English coastal access authorities—defined in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 as the local highway authority, or the national park authority in a national park—are best placed to manage many aspects of the local implementation. They include consulting local interests, contacting and discussing options with landowners, and managing the work required. Where those authorities are willing and able to act, they will be fully involved in the implementation of these proposals.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) made a very constructive contribution. I pay tribute to him for his work, just as he paid tribute to the work that this Government have done in bringing forward the Bill. We need to take account of socioeconomics, but we have to get the balance right. We know the expectations that exist outside the House, but we have to deliver what the Bill proposes. We must deliver sustainability in the seas and conservation, but the Bill is also about securing sustainable livelihoods. I am looking forward to teasing out that balance in Committee.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe asked about the general objectives and responses of the proposed MMO. He called for further changes to its objectives, but the Bill as a whole is designed to put in place better systems for delivering the sustainable development of the marine and coastal environment. The MMO will be the Government's strategic delivery body in the marine area, and will be required to have regard to all aspects of sustainable development in carrying out its responsibilities.
	I join the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) in paying tribute to the work of the lifeguard and emergency services in the recent incident to which he referred, but we must never forget what they do every day and every week. Fishermen are part of the solution as well as the challenge that we face. The Bill is predicated on bringing people with us so that they own the solution and play their part in solving some of the challenges.
	In respect of two-tier marine conservation zones with highly protected areas, the Government expect that there will be highly protected areas in the MCZs. However, there will be other areas in which the wide variety of interests can be represented. What we do not want is to have super-duper versions called "highly protected areas" and others that are not as good. All the MCZs will be important, and will contribute to the ecologically coherent network.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) made some valid points about ecologically coherent networks, socioeconomics and the sea fisheries defence. That latter point, which was also raised by other hon. Members, is something that we will return to in Committee. He also referred to seascapes, another matter that I am sure will come up in Committee. Seascapes are mentioned in the high-level marine objectives that were published earlier in the year, and they will be covered by the marine policy statement. Moreover, locally important seascapes can be recognised in marine plans.
	The hon. Member for Gosport (Sir Peter Viggers) spoke about co-ordination across boundaries. He was absolutely right and, as we go into Committee, I can assure him that we have the right structures to deal with Wales, Scotland and so on.
	Many other hon. Members made valuable contributions in what was a passionate and well informed debate. I am looking forward to our deliberations in Committee: the Bill has already been improved significantly, but it will become better still in the next stage of discussion.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Roger Godsiff: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those points.
	Will the Minister give an assurance that the five questions put by the 14 local resident and forum groups in their joint letter of 6 June to the Government office for the west midlands will receive a response, as they are all relevant to the decision-making process regarding the application?
	The application is now in the hands of the city council, and in view of the fact that the Warwickshire county cricket club is seeking a preferential loan from the City, I hope that the Conservative-Liberal-controlled council will insist that before any finance is made available, the club engages in meaningful and ongoing discussions with community groups about how to minimise inconvenience caused by the increasing numbers of spectators attending functions and international matches, and most importantly, that the five floodlight pylons are retractable, rather than permanent.
	It appears that a local councillor has already attended a meeting that was held by the council leader on Monday, at which he is alleged to have said that he—the council leader—voted against permanent floodlights when he was a member of the planning committee in 2000. It also appears that assurances were given at that meeting that any loan would be conditional upon further "consultations", as the note says. However, it is not stated with whom those consultations will take place.
	Above all, nothing appears to have been said at the meeting about the council's position on permanent or retractable lights. I strongly believe that there is a basic pre-requisite for any loan to be conditional upon retractable lights at Edgbaston. When the Department's inspector considered the appeal by the cricket club to erect four permanent floodlight pylons in 2000, he was scathing in his objections. He stated in paragraph 25 of his report:
	"My conclusion is that the proposal would result in substantial harm to the character and appearance of the area".
	In paragraph 27, he said that
	"their proximity to residential dwellings would be unacceptably dominating for local residents—many houses would become substantially less pleasant places in which to live."
	Most importantly, in paragraph 40 of his report, he states:
	"PPG 24 which deals with noise from recreational and sporting activities requires that the enjoyment of the participants should be balanced against the nuisance to other people."
	He concludes:
	"This I have done, and I find permanent lights to be unacceptable."
	I assure the Minister that the rest of the report was equally scathing.
	Warwickshire county cricket club, in the planning application that it has now submitted, says that it has considered
	"retractable floodlight columns which would retract to a height of 25 m when not in use."
	However, it then says, according to the council report, that the technology is unproven for cricket's requirements and goes on to suggest, amazingly, that lights at a height of 25 m would be more obtrusive than lights at 50 m. The club finally ends by saying that unless permission were given for permanently erected floodlights, which it proposes, Edgbaston would lose its test status. That is totally untrue and misleading.
	We all know that the home of cricket is Lord's, and the ECB operates from there. Lord's has installed four retractable floodlights, which rise to a height of 48 m when fully erected and are lowered to a height of 29 m when not in use. They take approximately 20 minutes to erect. Furthermore, at the Oval, where the president of Surrey cricket club is the former Prime Minister Sir John Major, retractable lights have also been installed. The company that installed both sets of lights is Abacus Lighting, and it has also installed similar retractable floodlights at other sporting venues throughout the world. In a trade magazine article, its head of marketing, Kelly Herrick, makes a potent point:
	"Our new patented telescopic masts proved the perfect solution to overcome the strict planning regulations set out by the local authority. The ground is set in a densely residential area so both the design and lighting overspill had to take in to consideration how the local residents could be affected."
	That is exactly the situation at Edgbaston.
	Of course, it is more expensive to install retractable floodlights rather than permanent ones, but I put it to the Minister that, if the home of cricket can have retractable floodlights to preserve the attractiveness of St. John's Wood for the people who live there, why is the same consideration not to be given to the people of Balsall Heath and Moseley? If Warwickshire county cricket club were to refuse to make those reasonable concessions, many people living in the area would say that the council should not make any loan available to the club; and I, for one, would totally agree.

Shahid Malik: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure—indeed, I consider it an honour—to be the Minister responding to this Adjournment debate, as this is your first such debate in your new and deserved role as Speaker. You are responsible for me carrying out an act that I thought was impossible—namely, voting Conservative three times yesterday. But, I believe that it was a price worth paying. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) on securing this debate about an issue that I know is important to him, to a number of his constituents and to those living in the area.
	I shall provide some background to the redevelopment of Edgbaston cricket ground. I know that my hon. Friend recognises that Edgbaston is one of the key international sporting venues in the west midlands region. The cricket club is considered to be one of the largest of the 18 major county clubs that make up the English domestic cricket structure, and the ground has regularly been used as a test and one-day international venue.
	The cricket club estimates that average attendance in 2008 ranged from 1,334 for the Friends Provident trophy to 7,958 for the Twenty20 cup. Test match fixtures average between 12,000 and 17,000 spectators per day, and one-day internationals usually sell out at 21,000 capacity. The club calculates that up to 200,000 spectators visit the stadium per year. It employs 78 full-time staff and a further 20 staff for regular events held at the club, and some 600 temporary staff are employed on each international match day.
	The club estimates that the major matches staged in Edgbaston contribute up to £12 million per annum to the local economy. I know that my hon. Friend recognises the value of that to Birmingham in terms of the visitor economy and the prestige of hosting international cricket. However, the club believes that it faces increasing competition in hosting major matches. Historically, test match cricket in England has been held at six locations: the Oval, Lords, Old Trafford, Trent Bridge, Headingley and Edgbaston. Those venues have been able to rely on the substantial income generated by test match status, but other grounds are now challenging their position.
	Against that background, Warwickshire county cricket club needs to redevelop the ground to ensure that that it scores highly against the requirements of the England and Wales Cricket Board. The club estimates that major matches account for about 50 per cent. of the income that it generates, and that it is critical to both the city of Birmingham and the future economic stability of the club that it continues to be allocated major matches such as international cricket. Therefore, as my hon. Friend said, the club and its development partner, MCD Regeneration Ltd, made a planning application to Birmingham city council on 11 November 2008 for substantial redevelopment of the cricket ground. The proposals include a new, larger stand, an increase in seating capacity by 4,000 to 25,000, permanent floodlighting, and mixed-use development.
	The club considers that mixed-use development is critical to generating sufficient funding to support redevelopment of the stadium. It believes that the proposals would create an estimated 3,000 construction jobs and 1,000 permanent jobs. Given the current recession, that would give an important boost to the local economy. According to an initial economic impact assessment, the proposal will generate additional gross value-added growth of some £60 million over the next 10 years. The proposal would align with the policies in the west midlands economic strategy for promoting Birmingham and encouraging investment and development to improve its competitiveness and its standing as a global city.
	The permanent floodlighting would be in the form of five metal floodlighting columns about 50 metres high, which would be cranked just below the halfway point at an angle of 50(o) to lean over the stand towards the pitch. They would replace the temporary floodlights erected on the back of heavy goods vehicles. The club believes that the more stringent facility requirements of the cricket board will mean that venues will remain viable only when they can provide high-grade international-standard floodlighting. It makes comparisons with other grounds that already have permanent floodlights, or that have planning permission for such facilities. It considers that it has taken into account the concerns that the inspector raised in dismissing the appeal on its earlier application for permanent floodlights in 2000. My hon. Friend mentioned that as well.
	I know that the inspector was concerned about harm to the character and appearance of the area, but I am aware that the club sought to examine afresh possible lighting solutions, and that in terms of design and materials used, it considers the concerns expressed by the inspector to have been adequately addressed. I also know that Birmingham city council commissioned a report from the Institute of Lighting Engineers, which concluded that the scheme was acceptable and that nuisance for residents should be minimised. The club has agreed to a condition restricting use of the floodlights to 15 days per year and to no later than 11 pm.

Shahid Malik: During his speech, my hon. Friend focused constantly on the floodlights. Obviously, the 15-day provision deals with the issue of floodlight pollution, although I recognise that it does not deal with the challenge of the skyline.
	I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about aspects of the proposal; I was merely doing some background work, for the sake of completeness, before I get to the points that he is anxious to hear about. He is concerned that the permanent floodlights will have a considerable impact on local residents and be harmful to the skyline. He has also raised concerns about the scale of the mixed-use development and the impact on residential amenities. Let me reassure him that all the representations made on the application were taken into account.
	My hon. Friend asked why the Secretary of State ordered an inquiry into the previous application for permanent floodlights, but decided not to call in the current application. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) pointed out, the 2000 application was not called in; it was subject to appeal on grounds of non-determination by Birmingham. A Government-appointed inspector considered the detailed merits of that proposal, and decided to dismiss the appeal.
	The current application is different because the Secretary of State is not responsible for determining the detailed merits of the proposal, but—this is crucial—for deciding whether, in relation to the Government's call-in policy, the application should be called in for the Secretary of State to determine or should be left to the local authority.
	Our general approach, with which my hon. Friend will be familiar, is not to interfere with the jurisdiction of local planning authorities unless that is necessary. Parliament has entrusted them with responsibility for the day-to-day planning control in their areas. It is right that, in general, they should be free to carry out their duties responsibly, with the minimum of interference from central Government. However, there will be occasions when we consider it necessary to call in planning applications for the Secretary of State to determine, instead of leaving the decision to the local planning authority. Our policy is to be very selective about calling in planning applications. We will, in general, take the step only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved.
	The Secretary of State carefully considered all the matters raised by the cricket club application, and had in front of her Birmingham's report to its planning committee. That made it clear that the advantages and disadvantages, including relevant policy issues, had been fully identified and a conclusion reached on the balance of interests. Having considered all that, the Secretary of State concluded that intervention would not be justified. A non-intervention letter was therefore issued to Birmingham on 4 June.
	I stand by that decision. It is right that the matters raised by the application should be resolved at the local level. I am satisfied that the issues raised do not relate to matters of more than local importance that would be more appropriately decided by the Secretary of State rather than Birmingham city council. As my hon. Friend may be aware, however, there is still an opportunity for the local community to help shape the proposals. The cricket club will be required to submit detailed applications on issues such as the height and design of the mixed-use development, which will be subject to full consultation. Birmingham city council has also asked the club to form a residents' liaison group to allow issues of concern to be discussed. He may also be aware that before granting consent, the council is finalising aspects of the section 106 agreement, which covers matters including highway improvements and traffic control.
	I know that my hon. Friend is concerned that the Secretary of State's decision was reached in a relatively short period. As I have mentioned, the Secretary of State does not determine the detailed merits of an application. In the case of this application, I am satisfied that all the matters raised were taken into account in the light of call-in policy before the decision was issued.
	On traffic, the cricket club will be required to undertake necessary junction improvements and prepare a match-day travel and parking strategy and a travel plan. Taken together with the other measures proposed, it appears that there is an opportunity to minimise the traffic impact. I know that Birmingham city council recognises that the cricket club represents a significant amount of commercial floor space in an out-of-centre location. However, it appears to have balanced the conflict with policies in town centres against the benefits to the area of the various aspects of the development. The development plan policies support the development of Edgbaston as a major cricketing venue, and there is evidence of only limited harm to the viability and vitality of local centres and Birmingham city centre.
	In balancing those considerations, the council had to take into account the various views expressed both for and against the proposal. Those included the view of Advantage West Midlands, the regional development agency, with which my hon. Friend is more than familiar, that it was a significant proposal that would not only assist in securing international and major fixtures at Edgbaston but have significant economic spin-offs for the west midlands region.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the design of the floodlights. For obvious reasons, as I have stated, I am unable to comment on the various floodlighting options available. On call-in, we carefully considered the whole application to decide whether the proposals raised issues of more than local importance, and we considered that they did not.
	I realise that my hon. Friend is disappointed by the decision on the application, but I hope that the debate has demonstrated to his constituents and people in the area that they have a powerful advocate on their behalf.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.